
Ru.S«- 10^-5-3-18- 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 
AND OTHER INDUS- 
TRIAL QUESTIONS 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 
& OTHER INDUS- 
TRIAL QUESTIONS 



hi 1 1 am Vieob^U^ 

LORD LEVERHULME 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 
VISCOUNT HALDANE OF CLOAN 



1DITID BY 

STANLEY UNWIN 




NEW YORK 
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 

1919 



MOOTS PEBABMB? BEAHCH 



H 'M 3*10 







MM n'gftfc reserved) 



«WWRlttto jfcoM PUBLIC LIBRARY 



EDITOR'S FOREWORD 

When Lord Leverhulme gave me permission to reprint in 
book form a collection of his Addresses, I had no conception 
of the mass of material from which I should be called upon 
to make a selection. The wide range of the subjects and the 
diversity of the audiences are alike remarkable. Whether 
he is addressing a learned society, a meeting of business men, 
a boys' or girls' school, a men's brotherhood, or a gathering 
of his own employees, his gifts of lucid exposition, concrete 
and often homely illustration and apt anecdote never fail 
him. One thing he has never learnt — how to be dull. It 
was, indeed, surprising to find that one so immersed in business 
and occupied with enterprises in all parts of the world had 
found time for so much activity of this character. But the 
explanation was simple ; Lord Leverhulme prescribes a Six 
hour Day, but he manages to work sixteen. 

In the following selection I have confined myself largely 
to addresses dealing with Industrial questions, and in particular 
to those which treat of the two subjects which lie nearest to 
his heart and upon which he has had most to say — Co-partner- 
ship and the Six-hour Day. But space has been found under 
the heading " Education and Business " for some characteristic 
speeches of a lighter order. 

For the most part no changes have been made in the 
original text, but to avoid undue repetition, references to the 



vi EDITOR'S FOREWORD 

Six-hour Day and Co-partnership have been, omitted from 
addresses concerned principally with other subjects. 

The two opening essays on the " Six-hour Day " have 
been specially written for the volume and embody Lord 
Leverhulme's considered views on this all-important subject. 
They demonstrate that in the opinion of one of the most 
enlightened capitalists and foremost business administrators 
in this country a Six-hour Day is no mere chimera but 
a practical and necessary step in the Reconstruction after 
the War. If this volume serves to focus attention upon this 
one attainable ideal, its most important purpose will have 
been achieved. 

STANLEY UNWIN. 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

EDITOR'S FOREWORD v 

INTRODUCTION BY VISCOUNT HALDANE . . ix 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY— 

I. INTRODUCTORY. THE INDUSTRIAL SITUA- 
TION . . . . .3 

II. THE SIX-HOUR DAY . . . .14 

III. TOOLS TO THE MEN WHO CAN USE THEM 36 

IV. NATIONAL POSSIBILITIES . . .50 

CO PARTNERSHIP— 

I. CO-PARTNERSHIP .... 59 



II. CO-PARTNERSHIP AND BUSINESS MANAGE 
MENT 

III. RIGHT CONSTITUTION OF CO-PARTNER 

SHIP 

IV. ESSENTIALS OF CO-PARTNERSHIP . 
Y. CO-PARTNERSHIP AND EFFICIENCY . 

VI. CO-PARTNERSHIP AND HIGH WAGES 
VII. HARMONIZING CAPITAL AND LABOUR 
VIII. TRADERS' PARTNERS 



73 

90 

95 

97 

107 

112 

123 



APPENDIX-r- 

The Co-Partnership Trust ix Lever 
Brothers Limited .... 135 



-»n 



viii CONTENTS 

PAGfi 

HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE— 

I. UNDERCURRENTS OF HOUSING, CAPITAL, 

AND LABOUR 141 

II. LAND FOR HOUSES .... 155 

III. VISIT OF INTERNATIONAL HOUSING CON- 

FERENCE 170 

IV. STANDARDIZING WELFARE ... . 183 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS— 

I. YOURSELF IS MASTER . 
II. FAST ASLEEP ON A GOLD MINE 
III. VICTIMS OF EDUCATION . 
IV. GIRLS AND BOYS . 
V. OUTPUT AND INTAKE 



199 
210 
221 
231 
236 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS— 

I. INDUSTRIAL ADMINISTRATION . . .247 

II. COMBINES . . . . . .260 

III. X PROBLEMS 274 

IV. ZERO YIELDS OF CAPITAL AND LABOUR . 290 
V. DAY-WORK OR PIECE-WORK— WHICH ? . 309 

VI. SOCIALISM, OR EQUALITY AND EQUITY .^29 
INDEX . . . . . .342 



INTRODUCTION 

By VISCOUNT HALDANE 

Truth does not stand still. What is enough for one genera- 
tion may prove inadequate when that generation has done 
its work and a new one has arrived. He would be bold who 
ventured to say that any plan for settling the relations between 
labour and capital could be reckoned on to prove sufficient 
in times ahead, merely because it would improve the state 
of things to-day. 

None the less it is an event of importance when a captain 
of industry on a colossal scale has planned out a means 
towards the end of making things work in his own time, and 
has so far put Co- Partnership into successful operation. 
The pages of this book set forth not only the broad conclu- 
sions to which Lord Leverhulme has come about reform in 
the relations of capital to labour in great productive under- 
takings, but the book describes the fashion in which he has 
actually sought to apply these conclusions in his own very 
large works. It is this feature in the exposition that gives 
it much more than an academic importance. There will 
doubtless be many questions raised, and many who will assert 
that the point which he has reached falls short by much 
of the end of a journey the whole of which they wish to 
accomplish. But it cannot but be to the good to have before 
us the record which the book contains of a great attempt 
at progress. Lord Leverhulme's endeavour has been to 



x INTRODUCTION 

mterest labour in the results which modern direction of labour 
and of the capital employed is accomplishing. His principle 
is progressive profit-sharing on the part of labour. He 
describes the system under which the worker is given a share 
in profits without being subjected to the temptations and 
uncertainties of the common type of shareholder. He says 
frankly that his motive has been no merely sentimental one, 
but the desire to do what is at once best for his business and 
at the same time beneficial and just to those employed in it. 
It is plain that the conception which underlies Lord 
Leverhulme's conclusions about productive undertakings is 
very different from that put forward more than half a century 
ago by Karl Marx. The socialists of those days taught 
that labour was the real source of wealth, and that the com- 
petition for employment brought about by increase of popula- 
tion enabled the monopolist who chanced to own capital 
to dictate rates of wages tending towards the minimum that 
would avert bare starvation. For them the obvious and only 
remedy was the abolition of private ownership of capital, 
including land. But the advent on a large scale of the 
modern banking system, and particularly of the joint-stock 
company, has to some extent changed the premises of the 
syllogism. Capital is now no monopoly. It is a widely 
diffused commodity which can be hired in the open market 
at a moderate interest by any one who can command public 
confidence. The particular form of capital which is called 
land is not in reality in a different position. We are rapidly 
tending to the general opinion that it must not be withheld 
where it is required, and that all the owner is entitled to is 
its market value. Capital, including land, is therefore to- 
day becoming an instrument of which he who can really 
wield it can get the use freely. It does not create wealth. 
That is created by the unlocking of the potential energy 



INTRODUCTION xi 

stored up in the world beneath, around, and above us, and 
by the conversion of this potential into kinetic energy in 
its appropriate form. Coal, for instance, enables men to 
produce heat and steam, and the energy of steam is turned 
into electricity. But labour is for this purpose only an 
instrument, no more adequate by itself to the task than is 
capital. What impels both is participation in thought-out 
and complete operation, and what is the fountain and origin 
of the activities of both is mind. The initiation and direc- 
tion cannot be given either by the mere capitalist or the 
mere labourer. As progress takes place, as increase of out- 
put becomes more and more essential, as competition sets 
in, only to be met by fresh invention, it becomes plain that 
no industry can stand still. If it is to succeed it must be 
constantly adapted, and to this end not only mind but 
trained mind, and the increasing command of scientific 
knowledge and invention, are essential. The director who 
has genius will accordingly always possess something of 
the power of a monopolist. 

Now, how is this new form ot peril to be met ? To begin 
with, it cannot be wholly met. Nature will always produce 
men and women of quite unequal capacity for direction, 
and a few with talent for it which will give them colossal 
advantages in the competition for the foremost place. In 
the second place, I do not think that we need worry ourselves 
over the fact that we cannot prevent nature from denying 
us equality in this particular form of talent. As civilization 
progresses, if the minimum standards are raised as regards 
the home and the means of living, if knowledge is more widely 
diffused and higher ideals prevail, inequality in wealth will 
count for less than it does to-day. What are called " values " 
will change ; I mean those ends which people judge as con- 
clusively best in themselves, and to be chosen without question. 



xii INTRODUCTION 

Men and women, relieved from the grinding pressure of 
poverty, and having enough to live on, may well prefer, as 
the main thing that counts in life, to know more rather than 
to have more wealth. The possessions of the millionaire 
may, in days to come, count for less to the average man than 
under existing conditions. And here comes in the real point 
of Lord Leverhulme's ideal of a six-hour day. The labour 
of such a day must be concentrated if it is to bring a suffi- 
ciency in wages. But if it does bring such a sufficiency it 
leaves leisure for the things of the soul. 

One of the nascent ideas which are taking root in this 
country, an idea which is being fostered in particular by 
the Workers' Educational Association, is adult education. 
We have forgotten too often that a man's mind can be de- 
veloped in a high degree comparatively late in life. Under 
sufficient stimulus of ideas he can acquire a freedom of spirit 
which is just as important to him as his bodily liberty. For 
freedom is the essential characteristic of mind at its best, 
the freedom which enables it to detach itself and to choose 
freely ; to be the spectator of time and of eternity, and to 
abstract, if need be, from its own pain and even from its own 
death. We want to produce in this country a generation 
of an outlook large enough to see things steadily and to see 
them whole. If the doctrine which underlies Lord Lever- 
hulme's conclusions is right, the production of such a genera- 
tion is of high importance for industry itself as well as for 
spiritual ends. Now the six-hour day is a means to the 
attainment of this object. 

But the conception of direction as the source of wealth has 
another application. Probably it is best that in the supreme 
command of every great industrial undertaking there should 
be a single great intelligence. Unity of conception and of 
execution is not, in its highest form, easy to produce co- 



INTRODUCTION xiii 

operatively. We have seen something of this truth in con- 
nection with the armies in this war. But just as even in an 
army devolution can be carried very far and with great ad- 
vantage, if the level of general intelligence is high enough, 
so it is in industry. The object ought always to be to get the 
operations that are merely mechanical performed by machines 
in relief of men, and to entrust to the men in charge of them 
the duty of arriving at a result by their own intelligence and 
initiative rather than by mere rule of thumb. So only are 
initiative and invention to be stimulated. So only is labour 
to be relieved of the monotony which always comes in when 
the mind is not called on to play any real part. 

In other words, the object should surely be to make the 
workman in the future more of a director of instruments 
than a labourer, and to unite hand and brain as of necessity 
implying each other. Monotony will at least be diminished 
when men feel that they have always to be thinking when 
they act, and that the occupation of the workman depends 
on knowledge and skill, and belongs to what is truly a pro- 
fession. It will require education and training to bring 
this about, but if it can be done, even partially, it will 
give more freedom of the spirit and it will give some- 
thing more besides. It will afford an opening for exceptional 
talent, and for its development to the man who possesses 
it. For the factory and the mine will tend to become places 
where there is a gradation of direction, dependent on 
capacity for directing. It will be open to every man to rise, 
and it will be in the interest of the organization as a whole 
that he should have the chance of rising, and of so bringing 
to bear his own special gift To this end not only do Lord 
Leverhulme's six-hour day but his profit-sharing arrange- 
ment also seem to lend means. And in the nation as a whole 
the tendency will be to substitute for the existing aristocracy 



xiv INTRODUCTION 

of wealth a new aristocracy, an elite of talent, the members 
of- which will always be changing, and which will be open to 
the humblest if only he renders himself capable of entering it. 

Such a reorganization of industry and of society can only 
come gradually. But the gradual process of its evolution 
may produce results more rapidly than people are apt to think. 
It is not. only the new earnestness of spirit about education 
and the things of the soul that promises much. It is the 
new and impressive demand to bring production up to the 
level of the scientific standards which are now being reached. 
As Lord Leverhulme says, our waste of energy by not de- 
veloping electrical processes and machinery is a hindrance. 
We seem, however, to be in sight of great reforms in this 
connection which may enormously diminish the waste of coal 
and water-power which has obtained hitherto. With a copious 
and well-distributed national system of distribution of elec- 
trical current from great central generating stations, instead 
of its inadequate and costly supply from the multitude of 
little generators which are strewed about the country to-day, 
a vast improvement becomes conceivable. If this were 
done, much reduction in standing charges would be possible, 
together with greatly increased production and much improved 
wages. The energy furnished could be employed mainly 
in the day for giving power, and at night largely for giving 
light. But it would at least be easier to provide for the 
continuous operation in different forms of a uniform elec- 
trical current which would make practicable the provision 
required for the introduction of a succession of short shifts 
for those employed in production. 

In these matters, which are of such tremendous impor- 
tance for the future of our nation, the Government and the 
great captains of industry, such as Lord Leverhulme, must 
play their part. Much thought and much guarding against 



INTRODUCTION 



xv 



inertness and the selfishness of the individual are required. 
But, after all, what is most important is a high level of intelli- 
gence and interest in our people. And it will not be enough 
to confine this intelligence and this interest to things that 
are only material, however important. Further ideals are 
required — ideals of knowledge, ideals of beauty, and ideals of 
conduct. The whole man must be kept in view throughout. 
The spiritual leaders, in Churches and in Parliament and else- 
where, must co-operate. For it is not by bread alone that 
man can live. 

But the soul cannot be saved unless the body is attended 
to, and it is because I think that the result of Lord Lever- 
hulme's striving will be, if he succeeds, to better the 
condition of both soul and body that I have ventured 
by his desire to write these introductory lines in his book, 
and especially to that part of it which considers the 
six-hour day. 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 



I 

INTRODUCTORY. THE INDUSTRIAL 
SITUATION 

When this world-war is over we shall be confronted with 
problems which, whilst in no way new, will be presented in 
new and acute forms. How shall we, as an empire, emerge 
from this ordeal ? Are we to continue a progressive democ- 
racy or sink into the slough of Socialism and Anarchy ? The 
decision will rest not with the Socialists or Anarchists ; not 
with politicians or Governments, but with the business men 
and working men of the Empire. Hitherto on both sides 
there has been a disastrous exhibition of short-sightedness 
and of greed, or lack of knowledge of those economic laws 
on which all solid well-being must and can only rest. Every 
increase in wages and shortening of hours has been resisted 
by business men as a raid on their ability to meet competition 
and make reasonable profits. And every attempt by business 
men to increase output and reduce costs has been met by 
the workers with sullen indifference or the active opposition 
of " ca' canny " methods. 

Now we shall, after the war, be entering upon the most 
fateful and critical stage of our Empire's career. This war 
has thrown all previous rules and practices into the melting- 
pot. How will the Empire emerge ? Are we to attempt 
after the war to restore old decayed, wrong, and ruinous prac- 
tices, or is there to be a radical recasting of all our business 
and labour methods ? It has been truly said that " to govern 
and in turn to be governed is the only form of true liberty/ ' 
In a true democracy and in this sense there is no governing 
class and no class that is governed : all classes govern, and 
all classes in turn serve alike and together. All classes serve 
one master — the only master whose service all liberty-loving 



4 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

citizens can be proud to serve — and that i9 their country's 
welfare. 

Amidst all this confusion and clash of arms, this return 
to conditions of savage barbarism, our great encouragement 
and confidence are that the British Empire stands solid and 
united to face her foes, and loyal to our King as Sovereign 
of the British race at home and in our Colonies as never before 
in her history. Some timid people, suffering from an attack 
of cold feet, nervo^°ly ask, " What about Labour ? " The 
answer we can fin>i most clearly written in our history is, 
" Trust Labour wl jleheartedly and wisely, and all will be 
well." A good an<^ wise lover of the cause of Labour can 
never be a bad or undesirable citizen of the British Empire. 
And it will be our own fault if, by distrust and suspicions, 
we make him so. Let us never forget that the British spirit 
responds best when trusted, and can only become stupid, 
morose, and bad when distrusted and viewed with suspicion. 
This nation as a whole has never yet really trusted Labour. 
We have always borne a mental attitude of suspicion and 
distrust towards Labour. Well, this attitude won't help us, 
and is doomed to most serious failure and may bring possible 
disaster to the Empire. We have, with unbounded success, 
trusted our Colonies and other sections of the community 
that make up the British Empire, and, when we have done 
so, all has been well. We have even trusted the Boers in 
South Africa, who were so recently at war against us ; and 
now who amongst us dare to-day to come forward and say that 
our trust has not been amply and fully repaid by the loyalty 
and devotion to the British Empire of our South African 
brothers, Boer or Briton ? Distrust and suspicion can only 
breed distrust and suspicion, whilst confidence and trust 
inspire confidence and trust. The sympathy of every right- 
thinking man or woman is with those who toil ; with those 
who produce the necessities and comforts of life ; with those 
who bear the burden and heat of the day in whatever position 
they may be working : employer-capitalists or employee- 
workers. 

Our national future stability has its sure foundation in 
the fact that both employer-capitalist and employee-worker 
are each becoming more and more intelligent every year that 
passes. The day is fast coming when both will be intelligent 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 5 

enough to recognize that their interests are identical and that 
the prosperity of either depends on the prosperity of both. 

Life is not merely a respite between the sentence of death 
which is passed on all life at birth and the execution of that 
sentence. Every healthy human being seeks for happiness, 
and has to find happiness in supplying the wants of the body 
with food, clothing, and shelter. And equally happiness can 
only be found in feeding mind and soul with ideals of beauty, 
art, and learning. Happiness of the lasting, permanent type, 
without after shadows of regrets or ghosts of repentances, is 
the only good, and everything that tends to produce such 
happiness in men and women is good, and to do whatever 
produces this state and condition is to achieve the highest 
possible gain for the Empire and the whole of mankind. 

Our industries progress, science progresses, but we have 
little or no corresponding progress in conditions of comfort 
of the workers. The employee- worker lags behind in that 
culture, education, social and economic well-being which he 
ought to enjoy under modern conditions of civilization. Our 
manufacturing towns are squalid and overcrowded, with 
ugly dwellings, without gardens. They are unlovely conges- 
tions, without beauty or possibility of refinement, and the 
great bulk of the workers remain at a relatively low state of 
betterment. The individual Home is the solid rock and basis 
of every strong, intelligent race. The more homes there are 
and the better these homes are, the more stable and strong 
the nation becomes. Men and women who get up to go to 
work before daylight and return from that work after dark, 
cannot find life worth living. They are simply working to 
earn enough one day to prepare themselves to go to work 
again the next day. Their whole life is one grey, dull, mono- 
tonous grind, and soon their lives become of no more value 
to themselves or the nation than that of mere machines. 

Every year the workers become more intelligent and more 
acute reasoners. Think of the intelligence required in the 
workers to produce a modern locomotive or a greyhound of 
the Atlantic, or to work and operate the same, and to make 
and operate all the thousands of different types of machines 
now producing and working for the good of man. And each 
succeeding year demands still higher intelligence to produce 
still higher, better, and more complex mechanical utilities. 



6 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

The requirements of our ancestors were few, but as civili- 
zation advances, not only do the wants of the body for variety 
in food, raiment, and shelter increase, but as the mind and 
soul expand, the intellectual horizon widens and the higher 
plane of living demands more and more leisure to feed its 
hunger for better conditions of life. 

In the dark ages that are past, man believed in the super- 
natural as the direction in which he should search to satisfy 
his super- wants. To meet disease and death, primitive man 
believed in charms, magics, fetishes, and incantations. In 
chemistry he sought for the transmutation of base metals into 
gold, and his idea of mechanics was a search for perpetual 
motion ; and as to Governments, he relied on the Divine Right 
of Kings and Infallibility of Popes. 

Are we not equally ignorant and equally doomed to dis- 
appointment if to-day the employer-capitalist relies on the 
magic of the " perpetual motion " fetish of long hours of 
toil, with low wages for employee-workers ; and are we not 
also doomed to disappointment if to-day "the employee- 
workers rely on the " Philosopher's Stone " of " ca' canny " 
and the " transmutation " of restriction of output into the 
" Elixir of Life " ? 

The struggle of science and right thinking against ignorance 
and prejudice during the dark ages was long and bitter, but 
to-day no chemist is seeking for the " Elixir of Life " or 
trying to discover the " Philosopher's Stone." And equally 
our present-day ignorance of those economic laws that govern 
costs of production will disappear, and we shall learn that 
by development and encouragement of individual effort for 
increased output in fewer hours with higher wages we can 
best serve all mankind and best overcome all obstacles to 
progress, and so, by taking advantage of discoveries of science 
in invention and industrial development, supply all our wants 
with less exertion and secure a greater reserve of leisure to 
satisfy the hunger of mind and soul. 

We are all agreed that the industrial situation has become 
the most pressing after-war problem to be solved, and that 
the solution will not be easy, not because there is more poverty 
in the United Kingdom to-day than ever — as a matter of 
fact there is less poverty than ever before in our history — 
but because there is a wholesome Labour unrest and national 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 7 

craving for vastly better conditions of life. The poor are 
not growing poorer, and the workman of to-day is better off 
than his employer was two centuries ago. But because — 
and I rejoice that it is so — the workman is each day becoming 
more ambitious, his mind and soul are expanding at a greater 
rate than, under existing conditions — even with higher wages 
— his leisure time permits him to keep pace with. Each year 
the workman is becoming a better educated man, with better 
social outlook. Whilst his social outlook is expanding, the 
workman in the twentieth century finds himself simply a 
seller of service, and that he has gradually become a cipher 
in a most complex industrial system, and has his life absorbed 
and controlled as a mere unit in a great factory or workshop 
that leaves him no scope for the exercise of the higher intel- 
lectual developments of modern life. 

Whilst science is making life more livable and lovable by 
means of rapid transit and greater range of interests and 
wider scope, the time of the worker is occupied almost entirely 
in the provision of food, shelter, and clothing, with little or 
no leisure time remaining, even if he had the means, to provide 
for a higher level of living. He sees other sections of the 
community dashing about in motor-cars and generally living 
what appear to be, in contrast to his own life, lives of leisure 
and comfort. So long as the workman's life is passed in 
monotonous toil in factory and workshop from daybreak 
to sunset, no wages, however high, can make up for this 
separation from all that is highest and best in life : the 
workman is not content to be exhausted in the task of pro- 
viding food, shelter, and clothing for himself, wife, and 
children, with practically no leisure for other pursuits. 

This is perhaps a subconscious state, and is a condition 
that the workman himself would probably be unable to put 
into clear language, but that it exists is plainly shown by 
the so-called " Labour Unrest," and by the readiness with 
which a section of the Labour Party is prepared, Samson 
like, to break the pillars and throw down the whole structure 
of Society, rather than continue under the present conditions 
of the workman's life (which hateful conditions are far from 
being merely and solely a question of wages) — he disregards 
social usages, awards of umpires, his own Trade Union leaders, 
and the legal rights of Society, and would seek industrial 



8 THE SIX-SOUR DAY 

revolution in order to obtain redress from his present 
industrial position, and often merely imaginary grievances. 

All this "Labour Unrest" arises from the fact that his 
life in factory and workshop has become one dull, monoto- 
nous grind, from schoolage to dotage, and this state of mind 
is as dangerous to the workman himself as it is to the nation 
— dangerous to himself, because, while he smarts under the 
oppression of his lot in life, he does not quite know how to 
obtain that fullness of life and happiness, comfort and well- 
being, leisure and advancement for which he hungers. 

It is a basic law of all healthy, permanent growth that 
no one part of a whole can increase and develop without 
all other parts being symmetrically and proportionately 
increased and developed. This is equally true of Society as 
a whole or viewed in sections. No section of Society can 
enjoy improved conditions without all other sections enjoying 
improved conditions — otherwise there would be lack of sym- 
metry in the whole and danger of the social tree toppling 
over at the first gale that tested the strength of the hold of 
its roots on the solid ground. The future security, or the 
present danger that menaces the industrial world, will be exactly 
in proportion to the symmetrical growth or lack thereof in 
all its parts. We can have no so-called leisured class or 
moneyed class unless all classes can enjoy the opportunity 
in their lives of leisure and money in symmetrical proportion. 
Not in equal proportions, because there is no such thing 
as equality or uniformity in God's scheme of man or of nature. 
But nature's and man's Creator never planned that one 
section should be starved whilst another section be overfed 
without decay and death resulting. Therefore our problem 
can only be solved by increasing wealth and increasing leisure. 
Then equal distribution would have no meaning, because the 
mere fact of equal distribution would increase neither the 
total wealth nor the total leisure — in fact, equal distribution 
would decrease both, by withdrawing the stimulus of reward 
from those possessed of the power to create wealth and 
leisure, and would encourage the " leaners " and " apathetics " 
to cease from all efforts and to make no use of opportunity 
as a means for development in skill and knowledge for pro- 
duction of wealth. 
The power to create wealth is not a power against the 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 9 

public interest and well-being, any more than is bodily health 
and strength or great intellectual power. A man is not an 
enemy of the human race because, by exercise of foresight, 
thrift, and intelligence, he has accumulated great wealth, any 
more than is the man who, by temperate living and good 
habits, accumulates a store of good health, and consequently 
is fitted to live a long life. It would be as logical, as right, 
and as reasonable for the consumptives, the weak, the feeble, 
and the diseased to denounce the healthy and strong as it 
is for those possessing little or no wealth to denounce the 
rich and wealthy. And it would be just as effective a cure 
for consumption, weakness, feebleness, and disease to take 
steps to reduce the healthy and strong to a state of weakness, 
feebleness, and disease as it would be a cure for poverty to 
attempt to conscript the riches of the wealthy. 

Take, for instance, the crude Henry George theories that 
to abolish all property in land by confiscating the rents re- 
ceived from land, and the more recent suggestions of others, 
that to abolish all ownership in capital by confiscating all 
interest and profits on capital would abolish poverty, and 
this wealth, when shared in by all equally, would bring about 
the millennium. These proposals are shown up in all their 
grotesque absurdity when we examine the figures, for we 
then find that their product, on pre-war basis, would, if divided 
equally, be under nd. per head per day for each man, woman, 
and child in the United Kingdom. In this calculation we 
take, of course, no count of salaries or wages, or of foreign 
investments, but merely of profits, rents, and interest on 
capital invested in the United Kingdom. 

So that equality or uniformity of wealth is clearly no way 
to abolish poverty 

A man is not a criminal merely because he is wealthy 
nor is a man a criminal merely because he is weak, feeble, 
or diseased. A man is not judged merely by his state of 
health or disease, or his state of wealth or poverty, but by 
his acts and how he lives, be he healthy or diseased, be he 
wealthy or poor, and he is also rightly judged by how he 
came by his health or disease and how he came by his wealth 
or poverty. 

Some men acquired their health and strength, their feeble- 
ness, ill-health, or disease from their parents ; others gained 



10 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

their strength and health, or acquired their ill-health, feeble- 
ness, or disease, by their own acts. Equally, some men inherit 
their wealth or poverty from their parents, whilst others 
have gained their wealth or become poor by their own acts. 
A strong, healthy man can use his health and strength not 
only for his own benefit and happiness, but also for the good 
and happiness of others, and so become a gain to the whole 
human race. Equally, a wealthy man can use his wealth 
and riches not only for his own benefit and happiness, but 
also for the good and happiness of others, and so become a 
gain to the whole human race. The well-being and happiness 
of the whole human race depend not on equality of health 
or of wealth, but on each man and woman making the best 
use of their health or wealth, be either or both little or great, 
for the production of more health and more wealth. It is 
only so that gradually all can become healthy and all wealthy. 
Every advantage must be taken of every opportunity for 
creation of conditions that make it easier for each man and 
woman — if they so will — to become more and more healthy 
and strong, more and more wealthy and happy. 

The great end and aim of life is happiness. The happy 
man or woman is the highest product the world can produce, 
whatever their state of health or wealth, but health and 
wealth are great removers of limitations. And that is all 
that either health or wealth can do for any of us — just, 
remove our limitations and give us a wider scope for use- 
fulness to our fellow-men. 

We are forced, therefore, to direct our whole energies to 
the production of more wealth, and in doing so we must con- 
centrate on machine power and not on human energy. This 
will enable us to increase wages by creating a larger fund 
out of which to pay Labour — to increase leisure by reducing 
costs, so that fewer hours of toil are required to produce more 
goods, better goods, and cheaper goods by an ever-increasing 
use of machine power, so that the worker becomes, as he was 
intended to be, a director of machinery and not himself a 
machine or part of a machine. The man must be master 
and controller of the machine, and not the machine be master 
and so swallow up the mind and personality of the man. 

We find all over the world, in the semi-civilized countries 
as well as in the most highly civilized, that wealth is the 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 11 

greatest, wages are the highest, and hours of labour are 
the shortest where capital invested in machine power is the 
greatest per head of the people. This outstanding fact has 
yet to be learned by both employer-capitalist and employee- 
worker. The employer-capitalist must get rid of his infatua- 
tion for the error that low wages and long hours of toil for 
the employee-worker mean cheaper production and conse- 
quently higher profits. It is only by the extended use of 
machine power and the prompt adoption of every labour- 
saving device that cheaper production can be achieved by 
obtaining a greater volume of products. And it is only by 
the paying of the highest possible rate of wages to the 
employee-worker for the fewest possible number of hours 
that an adequate demand for this increased volume of products 
can be found. Leisure increases wants, whilst over-fatigue 
and long hours decrease wants. The British employee- worker 
will then recognize the fallacy of restriction of output as a 
means to social betterment for the workers, and will for ever 
discard this folly. 

Mr. Gompers, the American Labour Leader, has told us that 
the workman in the United States abandoned the fallacy of 
restriction of output thirty years ago, which was, by a strange 
coincidence, about the very period the British workman first 
began to adopt extensively " ca' canny " and restriction of 
output ; and since 1886 there has been a steady rise in the 
production per head of the workers in the United States, 
and an equally steady reduction in the production per head 
of the workers in the United Kingdom, with the result, as 
shown by the census of production issued recently, that of the 
seven million workers in Great Britain, four million were 
engaged in trades yielding a net annual increased value of 
only £75 to £100 per head over the value of the material used. 
In most of the principal industries in the United States the out- 
put per worker averages from three to five times that amount. 

We have to reconsider our methods and change all this. 
The power and ability to produce by means of machinery 
is from a hundred to a thousand times greater than the 
power to produce by hand labour, and demands from the 
man less fatigue. Notwithstanding the enormous increase 
in machinery, and simultaneously in complexity and in- 
tricacy of parts of machines, the workman always finds 



12 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

himself master of his machine — the machine cannot master 
the workman. And further, the better our equipment of 
machinery, the better and more intelligent our workman 
becomes. This is shown by the fact that, however high the 
type of machine may be, man can ^always improve on the 
same, so that each year the new machine shows improvements 
on the old machine. The man who can best effect this im- 
provement is the man who works at the machine. He knows 
the machine he works with as a rider knows his horse. He 
understands its peculiarities and its weaknesses, and gradually 
comes to view it almost as a living creature. Then why do 
we not get more inventions and suggested improvements 
from the man working the machine ? The reason is that 
suggestions for improvement require thought, and thought 
requires leisure, and the present industrial system gives no 
leisure. To provide more leisure, it can be proved that men 
properly trained to their task and to working together can 
accomplish from 50 per cent, to 100 per cent, more work 
than the same number of ill-selected, badly organized men. 
Similarly the man working with machinery ; the trained, 
skilled, unfatigued worker can produce a larger volume of 
product than the fatigued workman. The mastery of the 
machine can only be accomplished by development of high 
character as well as high skill in the employee-worker. The 
obtaining of the most from machines requires the highest 
intelligence along with highest character, and so we tend to 
get further from the brutes and nearer to the angels. Without 
machines, man required mere brute force and strength, with 
relatively little skill and no special high character or moral 
laws to guide him. The drunken or debauched workman 
is incapable of running a modern complicated machine in 
the factory or a modern high-speed locomotive. He is unable 
to keep up with the strain that machine or locomotive makes 
upon him, whilst the steady workman of character is com- 
plete master of his job and his machine. The whole tendency 
of modern machinery is to improve the workman whilst 
increasing his wages and reducing his hours of labour. A 
handloom weaver might be semi-drunk and take no harm 
at his work beyond loss of output. A man driving a horse 
and cart or carriage may be half drunk, and yet hi"s horse 
will find home in safety whilst the driver nods a drunken 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 13 

half -sleep. But not so the modern workman, with many 
and delicate intricate looms to watch and keep running, nor 
the man on the footplate of the express mail-train locomotive. 
The drunkard would be an impossibility for these modern 
machines, and would lack that nerve and steadiness of eye 
and hand essential to their operation. 

The modern machine knows nothing of religion or moral 
laws, yet it is one of the greatest religious and moral teachers 
the world has produced in modern times. However far and 
wide we extend mechanical utilities and machine power, we 
come finally to the necessity of providing intelligent and 
careful men for their control and running. Machines cannot 
run alone, and workmen of skill, high character, and moral 
conduct are essential to successful control. Man remains 
man and machine remains machine. Therefore we may 
look to the future with confidence. All the tendencies of the 
greater use of machinery are in the direction of improving 
man. Machinery properly used need not degrade man, but 
is capable of raising him indefinitely. 

Equally, modern industrial conditions improve the employer- 
capitalist. Modern industrial conditions demand and neces- 
sitate an employer of not only high ability, but also of high 
character. 

Can employer-capitalists and employee-workers so conduct 
productive and distributive industries, so work together, so 
adjust themselves to new ideals, so govern and serve the 
Empire, so, in brief, review their own private, selfish ideas 
on the lines of most enlightened self-interest that they may 
both realize the truth that in best serving the Empire and 
the public they will best serve themselves ? There never 
was a greater need for employer-capitalist and employee- 
worker to exercise the wisest and most enlightened self- 
interest. There never was such an opportunity for the 
immediate and prompt exercise of a far-sighted, wise, and 
enlightened policy. Narrow, selfish greed and cunning on 
either side would bring this Empire and its peoples to ruin 
and disaster. The future of civilization and of our Empire, 
and the future of our race, the happiness and prosperity of 
our children and our children's children, will depend in no 
small degree on the wisdom of our employer-capitalists and 
employee-workers, in whose hands now and after the war 
lie the guidance and control of our policy. 



II 

THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

There exists to-day profound and widespread anti-capitalist 
and anti-Trade Union labour prejudice and distrust. " A 
plague on both your houses " says the consumer, who feels 
uneasy and vaguely suspicious that he is not well and truly 
served by either. And with this widespread unrest there 
is the most profound ignorance of the very rudiments of 
the economics of production, of profits, and of wages. 

We may search, with painstaking care and attention, 
through the present-day writings of those who attempt to 
deal with industrial conditions and wages and hours of work, 
whether the writers be Socialists or Trades Unionists, but 
we shall search in vain for any recognition of the fact that 
the economical cost of production and volume of product 
are the all-important factors, or any reference to the fact 
that over 90 per cent., and possibly even over 95 per cent., 
of the products of labour are consumed by the employee- 
workers themselves, and not by the employer-capitalists. 
So that restriction of output, or the "oa* canny " policy, can 
only, whatever might be the rate of wages, make wages 
nominal by reducing their exchange value when measured 
in terms of clothing, food, and shelter. 

At this present moment there is in the mind of many writers 
and speakers the most shallow and dangerously wrong views 
as to the patriotism, during war-time, of so-called profits of 
capital and the patriotism of demands for higher wages of 
labour. It is not easy to get the public or the employee- 
worker to recognize that it would be the reverse of patriotic 
— in fact, absolutely ruinous to the national well-being — for 
the employer-capitalist to forgo profits during war-time. And 
it is not easy to get the public or the employer-capitalist to 
see that it would equally be the reverse of patriotic for the 

14 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 15 

employee-worker to waive demands for higher wages during 
war-time. The economic truth is that unless the employer- 
capitalist be able to make reasonably higher profits during 
war-time than during peace-time, and the employee-worker 
to earn reasonably higher wages during war-time than during 
peace-time — the profits to enable the employer-capitalist to 
expand production to the utmost and to meet post-war con- 
tractions and losses, and the wages to enable the employee- 
worker to meet the higher cost of living, and also the 
increased cost of higher living— it would be impossible 
to maintain the industries of the country at concert pitch 
during the war. 

In short, reasonable and fair, full profits to the employer- 
capitalist, and reasonable, generous, and full wages to the 
employee-worker during war-time are essential to the main- 
tenance of our Empire's stability and to prevent widespread 
national and business prostration. How to conduct our 
industries, how to handle capital and labour, how to run 
what we may call in brief the business of the Empire during 
the war, is one of the problems of the war, as it will be our 
problem after the war is over. 

Can we bear our post-war loads and carry the Empire 
after the war with its trade and commerce back into the calm 
safety of prosperity ? We can only do so provided all classes 
and both sexes, following the example set us by our King 
and Queen, continue to make, after the war, the same sacrifices 
of ease or comfort, and continue to work as hard and with 
the same spirit of brotherhood as has been displayed by all 
classes, without exception, during the war. This will be no 
easy task ; but we can and must face it, and, facing it 
promptly, it will be easier to accomplish than if we hesitate 
and procrastinate. Sound principles of finance and our 
national credit will necessitate our not only paying promptly 
the interest on our War Loans, but also providing for the 
repayment of the loans with all possible speed. 

Our National Debt at the end of the present financial year, 
1918-19, we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will 
be about eight thousand millions sterling. Our crushing 
burden of taxation during the current financial year is esti- 
mated to yield about nine hundred millions sterling. Hundreds 
of thousands of the flower of our manhood will have been 



16 THE SIX-HOUR DAT 

killed in battle or will have died of war diseases, or have been 
permanently maimed or crippled. We have a house famine 
actually with us, and are exerting every nerve and muscle 
to prevent a food famine and to provide munitions of war 
ships for commerce, and ships for war, submarines, aircraft 
and all known weapons of war for the destruction of life and 
property. Our programme of social reforms and betterment 
and of extended education is a long and an overdue one. 

And first of all we must learn the most serious importance 
of the avoidance of waste — waste of child life, waste of adult 
life, waste of energy, waste of time, waste of opportunity, 
and, greatest waste of all, the appalling waste caused by 
over-fatigue of the workers, resulting in inefficiency, bad health, 
lost time, and premature decay and death. 

But we have learned much during the last three years on 
the subject of fatigue, overwork, and excessively long working 
hours. We have proved conclusively that prolonged hours 
of toil, with resulting excessive fatigue, produce, after a 
certain point, actually smaller results in quantity, quality, 
and value than can be produced in fewer hours when there 
is an entire absence of overstrain or fatigue. Fortunately, 
however, this logical effect of over-long hours of continuous 
work does not apply, except to a very limited extent, to the 
case of machinery and mechanical utilities. True, even 
machinery must have times of rest for cleaning, overhauling, 
repairs, and lubrication ; but these stoppages are not serious, 
and require only slight intervals that are easily arranged 
for. Therefore, as we shall require an enormously increased 
output of goods to replenish stocks that have been allowed 
to run down, both for our home and export trade, and as 
we have the machinery available, and which hitherto in 
most industries has been run for only 48 hours per week, 
a solution of this one of our difficulties can be best and most 
readily found by working our machinery for more hours and 
our men and women for fewer hours. 

We must have a six-hour working day for men and women, 
and by means of six-hour shifts for men and women we 
must work our machinery twelve, eighteen, ■ or twenty-four 
hours per day. 

jWe have in the United Kingdom the finest type of work 
people in the human race — second to none in the whole world; 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 17 

If we are to make the most of this rare humanity, and have 
more of the inventions to which I have alluded, there must 
be some change in our industrial system of hours of working. 
We must remember the deadening effect of general factory 
life. From fourteen years of age to seventy years of age 
is a long life-span, and if you consider the conditions of at- 
tending, for eight hours a day, the same automatic machinery 
and following the same routine, with its continual deadly, 
monotonous round of toil, those of us whose employment is 
varied will realize how this bites into the soul of a man or 
woman and tends to corrode it. There is not that variety 
which human life thrives on. The horses of the coaches 
which went out of London along the level Slough and Windsor 
road were done up and had to be sold long before the horses 
that went a similar distance through Highgate, where they 
climbed the hill to the summit and then trotted down into 
the valleys with collars loose. And so also those who work 
in factories with unbroken monotony till tired and weary, 
only preparing by rest and sleep for the beginning of another 
similar dull day, must inevitably wear out at a premature 
age and become enfeebled under such conditions. 

Of all welfare work in factories, a proper apportionment 
of the time is the one that will yield the best results, and is 
the problem most pressing for solution. Let us take as an 
illustration of our meaning the position with regard to London 
and overcrowding. We know the slums of London and the 
overcrowding of London ; but do we realize that the Metro- 
politan area, with its y\ millions of people, covers the exten- 
sive area of 450,000 acres of ground. If, therefore, we had 
planned for building under ideal conditions of some ten houses 
to the acre over the whole of this Metropolitan area, instead 
of having, as we have at present, badly packed slum districts in 
some quarters and so on, and of badly housing only y\ millions 
of people, we could in that area have provided for housing 
22J millions of people, three times the number, with ideal 
surroundings for comfort and happiness. It is merely a 
case of bad packing. Now, I believe this is not an unfair 
parallel for me to take with regard to working hours. We 
can get into a working day of six hours all the work we 
are capable of when that work is monotonous — attending 
machinery and general work in a factory. To get the work. 

3 



18 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

condensed into six hours would enable us to produce not only 
everything that we require, but to produce it without fatigue. 
Not only can we produce, when all ranks and all classes 
of both sexes are workers for six hours each day for six days 
each week, all the ships, machinery, factories, houses, and 
goods we require both for home requirements and for exchange 
for raw materials through our export markets, but the houses 
can be built in beautiful garden suburbs ; we can provide 
adequately for education, mental and physical, and military 
training for national defence. In addition, all being workers, 
our burden of taxation will — being then wisely laid on the 
wealth produced — be borne by all without impoverishment 
or oppression of any. The only wise, sane basis of taxation 
is to avoid all tariffs on goods except luxuries, and then 
solely for revenue purposes, and to raise further revenue 
mainly by graduated income tax and death duties. The 
only possible way to produce wealth is by the labour of all 
classes working shoulder to shoulder together in co-partner- 
ship during reasonable hours and without .individual over- 
fatigue or overwork. There must be neither idle overfed 
and underworked men or women nor overworked, underfed 
men or women. It has been estimated that less than half 
of our total population are actual producers of wealth, but 
if we are, as a nation, to make good the wastage of this war 
and to maintain our position amongst the nations of the 
world after we have won complete victory and the uncondi- 
tional surrender of our enemies, then it will require that all 
able-bodied men and women from schoolage to dotage, of 
all ranks and stations, shall be workers for six hours each 
day for six days each week. There will be no place in the 
whole British Empire for the idle rich or the idle or " ca'- 
canny " poor. We cannot consent as a nation to there being 
any loafers, nor can the British Empire, if it is to continue 
to exist, become a loafer's paradise. 

But the adoption simultaneously, in all industries of the 
United Kingdom, of a six-hour working day is absolutely 
impossible and impracticable. As with the acorn that 
produces the British oak, the growth of the six-hour day 
movement will be slow, but none the less sure. It can only 
be adopted in such industries as those in which it will, by 
its application, give lower costs of production by working 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 19 

machinery for longer hours and humanity, in two or more 
shifts, for fewer hours. The six-hour day, for instance, is 
not immediately applicable to agriculture, because at present 
there is little labour-saving machinery used in agriculture. 
But already steam and petrol tractors for ploughing, culti- 
vation, seed-sowing, harvesting, and haulage are each succeed- 
ing year being more and more used, and it is quite evident that 
the time will come when a six-hour day and two shifts of 
workmen will be the most profitable and most economical 
employment for humanity in agriculture. 

It is already applicable without loss to all those industries 
in which the cost of production in overhead charges is equal 
in amount to the cost of wages. But in most workshops and 
factories the cost of production in the form of overhead 
charges is double or more the cost of wages. In all these latter 
the six-hour day can be applied forthwith with enormous gains 
in cost of production, provided the supply of raw material 
and of labour is available and the demand for products exists. 

The six-hour day is already a most urgent and much-needed 
condition of working hours in all industries where women 
and girls are employed. It must be remembered that a 
large proportion of women engaged in industries, whether 
married or single, have, unlike their fathers and brothers, 
some housework to do as well as their work in industrial 
employment. And these hours of housework and the re- 
sulting fatigue must be remembered when considering their 
hours of work in the factory, workshop, or office. 

In the textile industries and all others where the cost of 
overhead charges, such as interest on capital, salaries of 
partners and managers, repairs and renewals, depreciation, 
rates and taxes (omitting all taxes on income or profits) is 
about equal to the cost for weekly wages, the change from 
a 48-hour week to a 72-hour week of two shifts of 36 hours 
each would affect the cost of production somewhat as follows : 

Working a 48-hour week and assuming that the product 
was 1,000 items per week at a cost of £1,000 per week for 
overhead charges and of £1,000 per week for wages, the 
resulting total cost of production per item, exclusive of 
raw material and such other proportionate costs as would 
always be in exact relation to volume produced, would be 
40s. per item. 



20 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

If such textile or other factories adopted the six-hour 
working day system they would work 72 hours per week in 
two shifts of 36 hours each shift per week, and assuming that 
no increase of production per hour worked was achieved, 
which need not necessarily be the case, and that the wages 
paid for a 36-hour week were the same as for a 48-hour week, 
which must always necessarily be the case, then the resulting 
product would be 1,500 items. The cost of production for 
overhead charges would not be seriously affected, as machinery 
almost invariably becomes obsolete before it is worn out, 
and fixed capital in plant, buildings, and machinery would 
be the same, the cost of overhead charges would again be 
£1,000, but the cost for wages would now be £2,000, or a 
total of £3,000 for 1,500 items, or again a cost, exclusive of 
raw materials, of 40s. per item. 

But supposing, as one is justified in doing by past and 
present experience, that the unfatigued worker could produce 
as much in six hours as formerly was produced in eight hours — 
and we will examine into this later on — then the figures as 
to cost of production would be somewhat the following, and 
show a great gain in economical production : 2,000 items 
would then be produced in a 72-hour week of two shifts of 
36 hours each shift at a cost of £1,000 for overhead charges 
and of £2,000 for wages, a total of £3,000, or of 30s. per item, 
which would be a reduction of 25 per cent, on cost of produc- 
tion compared with cost when working a 48-hour week. This 
economy might wisely be used, partly in increased payment 
to the workers by means of a bonus on production in addi- 
tion to wages, which wages would be the same for 36 hours 
as formerly for 48 hours, and the balance to the consumer 
in reduced selling price of the product — so that practically 
the whole of the benefits of economy of production would 
go to the workers first directly in shorter hours of labour 
with higher total earnings as wages and bonus, and afterwards 
as consumers in lower cost of living. 

The employer-capitalist would not need to share in this 
economy of production, because his share would come to 
him on his increased production and quicker turnover of 
capital, with resulting increase in dividend-earning capacity. 

It is clear from this rough and ready calculation that in 
all industries where overhead charges exceed the portion of 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 21 

cost of production paid as wages to the worker, the advan- 
tages would be greater in proportion to the ratio of increase 
in cost of overhead charges. And equally it is clear that 
where the cost of overhead charges is less than the portion 
of the cost of production paid as wages, there would be a 
resulting increase in cost of production, in proportion to the 
ratio that the lesser cost of overhead charges bore to the 
cost paid as wages, and that a point would be reached at 
which the immediate adoption of a 72-hour working week 
in two shifts of 36 hours each would be impossible and 
impracticable. 

And now as to the possibility of the unfatigued worker 
producing as much in a 36-hour week as in a 48-hour week, 
let us refer to the experience of our forefathers as recorded 
in the debates in Parliament during the passing of the Ten 
Hours and other Bills, and let us remember also that nowa- 
days, with more or less automatic machinery, increased 
production per hour by the workers can be effected in two 
ways : firstly, by the unfatigued workers' increased efficiency, 
and secondly, by the unfatigued and alert workers being able 
to attend to a greater number of machines. 

At this stage some may be asking themselves, Why not 
work a 96-hour week in two shifts of 48 hours each ? and in 
answer to this we can apply the experience of Russia cited 
by Mr. Romaine Callender in a debate in the House of 
Commons on the Factory Acts Amendment Bill in 1874. He 
said : — 

The hours worked in Russia were of extraordinary duration — 
one case being cited when, by a double shift of workers, 132 hours 
were made per week, yet in this case the production per spindle 
was barely more than that of an English mill working 60 hours. 

Mr. Baxter, in an adjourned debate on the same Bill, 
also referring to the practice in Scotland at that time of work- 
ing twelve hours, and when the trade was good some 
fourteen or fifteen hours a day for a part of the week, 
said : — 

Now, I was so convinced that this could not be a good system, 
that twelve years ago I issued a peremptory order that no man 
in my employ should under an}/ pretext whatever be permitted 



22 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

to work in those premises for more than ten hours a day. And 
what was the consequence ? The very first year— and it has 
continued ever since — we turned out more bales in the ten hours 
than ever we had done in twelve or fifteen hours. 

In the same debate Mr. Hermon, who was, I believe, Member 
for Preston, stated : — 

There was a very strong opposition to the Sixty Hours Bill, but 
it might now be safely said that there was no manufacturer who 
wished to repeal it. He entirely disagreed with the Commissioners 
when they said that by giving more time in the evening to the 
operatives there would be an increase in debauchery. No such 
effect had followed from the Ten Hours Bill, but, on the contrary, 
as soon as it passed, the operatives had improved their position 
socially, mentally, and educationally, while it had advanced a 
most important branch of national industry. 

It is well known in the trade that more bad work accumulated 
during the last half-hour or hour than during the whole of the 
day. During this time a drowsiness crept over the factory hands, 
so that they became themselves like machines, and almost all 
the disputes and unpleasantness that occurred during the day 
had their source in the present prolonged hours of labour. 

Mr. Mundella, speaking towards the end of the debate, 
said : — 

The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) contended that if^ the working 
hours were reduced 6 per cent, the outcome would be reduced in 
the same proportion unless the machinery or its rate of speed were 
increased. That was, however, an argument which was answered 
by Mr. Hugh Mason, who, after he had reduced the hours of labour 
without adding a single revolution to the speed of his motive power, 
declared that he had not turned out a breadth less in the year 
after he had made the change as compared with that which 
preceded it. 

Miss Victorine Jeans, in her Cobden Club Prize Essay 
entitled Factory Act Legislation : Its Industrial and 
Commercial Effects, Actual and Prospective, states : — 

If we had to sum up in a single sentence the general effect 
of the Factory Acts on the textile manufactures, we should say 
that the legislation tended to enforce everywhere the prin- 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 23 

ciples of the selection of the fittest ; in other words, it helped 
to bring about the fittest use of capital, of invention, and of 
human skill and energy, and therefore it did not diminish pro- 
duction or lower wages, neither probably did it lead to a fall in 
profits nor a permanent loss of foreign trade. . . . 

No nation can long maintain a commercial supremacy unless 
its labouring class is strong and intelligent. 

There are those who will assert to-day, as Mr. Webb does, that 
the English cotton-spinner finds competition keenest, not where 
the hours of work are longest, as in Russia and India, but where 
they are shortest, as in Massachusetts. Certain it is that the 
most perfect machinery, the largest system of production, the 
lowest amount of waste time, are all features characteristic of 
those industries and those countries where the shortest working 
day obtains. 



But our greatest encouragement and inspiration come from 
reading the various speeches of the late Lord Shaftesbury 
(then Lord Ashley), when speaking in Parliament on the Ten 
Hours Bill. The Government of the day resisted the 
evidence he brought forward to show that the hours of 
labour could be reduced without economic loss. On May 
10, 1844, he spoke to the House as follows : — 

Here then springs up a curious and important problem for 
solution by this House — no, not by this House, for they have 
already resolved it — but for Her Majesty's Government, who 
deny our conclusions and oppose themselves to the thrice-recorded 
wishes of the British Empire. Which is the preferable condition 
for the people — high wages with privation of social and domestic 
enjoyment, without the means of knowledge or the opportunities 
of virtue, acquiring wages which they waste through ignorance of 
household economy, and placed in a state of moral and physical 
deterioration ; or lower earnings with increased advantages for 
mental improvement and bodily health — for the understanding 
and performance of those duties which now they either know not 
or neglect ; for obtaining the humble but necessary accomplish- 
ments of domestic life and cultivating its best affections ? Clouds 
of witnesses attest these things — clergy, ministers of every per- 
suasion, doctors, master-manufacturers, and operatives have given, 
and are ready to give again, the most conclusive evidence, but 
Her Majesty's Ministers refuse to listen, and will neither adopt 
the remedy we are proposing nor assist us with one of their own. 



24 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Speaking sixteen years afterwards as Lord Shaftesbury in 
the Town Hall, Manchester, on October 6, 1866, he referred 
to the agitation for the Ten Hours Bill and to the success of 
the workers in carrying their point, and the effects on the 
workers themselves as well as on the nation resulting there- 
from. He recalled the attitude the workers had taken up 
during the agitation. They had said : — 

" We are standing for the limitation of the hours of labour as 
our great right, as the charter of our liberties ; give us but that 
and you will never hear of sedition in Lancashire ; you will never 
hear of discontent ; you will see that we are among the most loyal 
of Her Majesty's subjects, and we shall be both able and willing 
to discharge every duty that can become a citizen. No more 
(they had said) shall you hear of disturbances in Lancashire if 
once that right is conceded, if once our just demands are 
acknowledged." 

Speaking of the better times, Lord Shaftesbury continued : — 

I cannot but congratulate you from the very bottom of my 
heart, and I know you will congratulate me that we are met under 
such favourable auspices. We are collected together in this 
room, not to talk of grievances, nor to devise methods for the 
purpose of removing them — not to talk of what we shall do, nor 
of what we fear * but simply and solely to exchange congratulations 
that we have, by the blessing of God, attained to the present 
condition of things, and that the whole of this great country is 
working in perfect harmony, men with masters and masters 
with men. 

There is no sour feeling, no angry heart, no difficulty existing 
among them. 

And how was this achieved ? Recollect this was achieved 
without violence, without menace, without strikes, without resort 
to any extraordinary or illicit means. 

God's blessing rested upon so peaceful a course ; and when 
you obtained your triumph, when you gained your end, I tell 
you I think in no one part of your career, in all the long agitation 
we had, did you exhibit a more generous spirit, a truer policy, 
a more thorough development of that which is the greatest blessing 
man can have — common sense, than the way in which you took 
your victory, and the way in which you acknowledged your 
triumph. There was no boasting, there was no paean, no crowing 
of coclss, no cry of victory, no desire to exult, and no saying to 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 25 

the masters : ". We have carried the victory and will make you feel 
you are under our feet." On the contrary, you said : " We 
have been enemies, but let us now be friends. We have 
come now to the grand point; you may fancy you may lose, 
but only give us a fair chance, only meet us with an open heart 
and generous treatment, and you will find that when worked out 
the issue will be quite as beneficial to yourselves as it is to the 
operatives." 

You have that statement from the Chairman, who from his 
own experience says that the measure has been beneficial alike 
to master and man, to employers and employed ; and so it is, and 
in all great works of this kind, in which the real rights of mankind 
are concerned, in which the physical and moral interests of the 
human race are in jeopardy, in all matters of the kind, depend 
upon it, the truer economy is justice and humanity, and when you 
have achieved the triumph the truer wisdom is to say, " We 
forget the past ; we have been enemies, but for God's sake let us 
be friends ; we have in time to prepare ourselves for eternity : 
let us have no feuds, no differences, but let us join hands and 
go forward, and God will bless the issue." 

And coming dowr to modern times, experience still demon- 
strates that working shorter hours with lessened fatigue does 
not reduce output, but generally, and with very few exceptions, 
tends to increase output. 

The Report of Dr. Vernon on the Health of Munition 
Workers gives facts which will remove any doubt existing 
in the mind of any one as to the six-hour working day. In 
that Report he states that from experiments spread over 
thirteen and a half months upon the output of workers making 
fuses, a reduction of working hours was associated with an in- 
crease of production, both relative and absolute. Hours of work 
were changed first from a twelve-hour day to a ten-hour day, 
and Sunday work abolished. A group of women making 
aluminium fuse bodies provided the following results : A 
twelve-hour nominal day, after deducting lost time, making 
eleven hours net, yielded ioo articles, say, per hour, and 
ioo totals, say, per week. A ten-hour nominal day, after 
deducting lost time, making nine hours net, yielded 134 
articles per hour and 111 totals per week. A nominal eight and 
a half-hour day, after deducting lost time, making a seven 
and a half-hour day net, yielded 158 articles per hour and 109 
totals per week, thus proving that an eight and a half-hour 



26 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

working day, or 52-hour week, yielded more in products, both 
per hour and per week, than a twelve-hour day or 72-hour 
week, calculated either per hour or per week. 

From other reports also that have been issued since the 
war began on fatigue of munition workers, we find this aston- 
ishing fact — that a larger output, not only per hour but per 
week, has been made when fewer hours have been worked. 
Recently an employer stated that in the early days of the 
war the nominal hours in his factory were 53 for the women ; 
and he was staggered to find that the women were losing an 
average of 14 hours each per week. Fourteen hours a week 
was the average lost time for each woman, bringing the 
actual average time worked by each down to 39 hours, and 
he said : " Oh, this won't do ; we will let the women come 
an hour later in the mornings, and we will let them go an 
hour earlier in the evenings," making twelve hours a week 
reduction. So he made the hours 41 a week, and then he 
found that the lost time averaged one hour per woman per 
week ; therefore, they were making 40 hours instead of 39 
as previously. But he found, in addition, that in the 40 
hours that they now worked — this was after deducting lost 
time — he had an increase in the output in the week of 44 
per cent. 

Government reports repeat over and over again, from 
definite experiments, that in a reasonable number of hours 
the human being turns out its maximum output. Fatigue 
the human being one day, let the man or woman come 
fatigued to work the following day, and so on, and after two 
or three days the output goes down, down, down, and is 
continually falling. Let the human being work no harder 
each day than the body can accomplish without fatigue, 
and he or she will come again fresh the next day ; and the 
output will increase and increase. And it has been found 
that the increased output by working a reasonable number 
of hours varied, according to the industry, from 50 per cent, to 
120 per cent., and the 50 per cent., it will be seen, agrees very 
nearly with the figures given in the above record. Therefore, 
it is not difficult to imagine that with two> shifts working 
six hours each shift, the output might go up 33 J per cent, 
per hour, and so give the same output in a 36-hour week as 
previously in a 48-hour week, 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 27 

Sir Robert Hadfield, of Sheffield, stated last year (1917), 
in the course of an interview : — 

At our plants we have reduced working hours with that largely 
beneficial result which seems to be inevitable. It has become 
clear that this procedure is even better business than it is 
humanity. Shorter hours make good men better, and bring the 
medium workman up to something higher than the old-time 
average. The hostility of the men to various progressive things 
was as unfailing as, for instance, their opposition to labour-saving 
machinery. Now they have learned that the better the tools 
the better the workman, and that the better the workman the 
better his pay. 

The fact that workmen are not themselves machines is not yet 
appreciated in its full value. 

Mr. Cecil Walton, of Glasgow, than whom there is no one 
who has a wider experience or speaks with greater authority 
on the subject of hours, fatigue, and output, has stated in 
an address given in Glasgow as follows : — 

There is only one way of reducing hours of a working day, and 
that is by increased production. Any attempt to shorten the 
working day without this must end in national failure. 

He cites the following amongst many other proofs of the 
possibility of greatly increasing output and greatly reducing 
hours : — 

A factory producing 15,000 items a week was divided into six units 
of machinery, each unit producing 2,500 items per week. It was 
decided during 191 7 to transfer some of these units of machinery 
to another factory in another part of the country, and to do this 
in one complete unit of machinery at one time, and to introduce 
a bonus on output arrangement with the operators. After removal 
of the first unit it was found that the remaining five units still 
produced 15,000 items a week. The second, third, and fourth 
unit were similarly removed, leaving only two units of machinery, 
and these again and alone produced 15,000 items per week. 

And again Mr. Walton has stated : — 

If we turn to the authorities on the subject and study the 
figures as given us with regard to output per head of our indus- 
trial armies, we are staggered to find that Germany and America 



28 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

produce per worker in the twenty-six principal industries something 
like five times as much as we do. This sounds a terrible indictment, 
and it is. But if we study the question closer still, we find it is 
not a disaster we cannot overcome. Their industrial efficiency 
is below what it ought to be, and although our own industrial 
efiiciency is lower, still we can so improve our efficiency as to bring 
ourselves easily in advance of either the German or American 
scale of industrial efficiency. 

He then proceeds to refer to the economy and increased 
efficiency to be achieved by one only of the many changes 
possible in our industrial operations — that contemplated in 
the "All Electric" Scheme, 1 by which it is shown that we 
are at present paying wages to at least one-half our industrial 
population for producing waste. It is claimed that by the 
introduction of such a scheme and the transfer of these 
producers of waste into the ranks of producers of essentials, 
we can reduce the working hours of all workers by 50 per 
cent, without reducing wages or increasing costs. So that 
the 25 per cent, reduction of hours involved in the scheme 
of a six-hour day can then become universal with increased 
wages to the workers and reduced selling prices to the con- 
sumer. He concludes with the deduction that this is a clean- 
cut proposition for which the nation should strive, and that 
he is quite convinced that by intensive production without 
fatigue in fewer hours we can greatly increase our production. 

But whilst under the scheme for a six-hour day the employee- 
workers would be working only for six hours each day, the 
machinery would be working for twelve, eighteen, or twenty- 
four hours each day, with resulting enormous increase in 
production at reduced cost. 

We need not fear too slow an adoption of the principles 
of economy of production— our fears are of too hasty adop- 
tion before supplies of raw materials, supplies of workers 
required for increased production are available, as well as 
increased demand sufficient to absorb all increased production. 

1 By the so-called " All Electric " Scheme it is proposed to burn 
the coal at the pit mouth, thus saving transport ,on rails to house 
or factory or locomotive, recovering the by-products for ferti- 
lizers, aniline dyes, and coke, and using the gas in internal combus- 
tion engines for generation of electricity, to be conveyed by 
truck, cables, and wires to wherever required. 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 29 

We are not likely in any case to move as slowly towards 
adoption as was the movement towards the Ten Hours Bill, 
which was first proposed in Parliament in 1802, and only 
finally carried by Lord Ashley through Parliament in 1850. 

It would be useless to increase the output of all the factories 
in the United Kingdom if we had no purchasers who could 
absorb the increased output. There are two great factors 
in increasing demand — one is increased wages and the other 
is reduced cost. Both these increase the purchasing power 
of the home-market consumer and equip us the better to 
compete with the foreigner abroad, by enabling us to supply 
cheaper articles for export, so that, as a commercial propo- 
sition, the six-hour day based on increased production would 
be absolutely sound, and could be depended upon to result 
in the increased demand for our products essential to its 
success. It is stated that a Scotchman once wrongly attri- 
buted a quotation from Shakespeare to Robert Burns. On 
being corrected he replied, "Ah, weel, it was guid enough 
for Rob tae ha'e written it." It is not known who first said 
that if one makes but a mousetrap better and cheaper than 
any one else the whole world will soon beat a path to one's 
door, but these words are good enough to have been said by 
the wisest business sage the world ever produced, and to 
date back to the very first dawn of civilized dealings between 
man and fellow-man. 

In addition to the effect of a six-hour working day in 
giving all that we require in production from our workers, 
so that we can pay to the workers the same wages for the 
reduced hours that they receive for the longer hours, it would 
give us this great additional national advantage : it would 
enable us the better to solve our after-war problem of employ- 
ment for the men and women who will then be released from 
actual war and 'war supply work. 

After the war we shall have a demand, which must be met, 
for increased supplies of all kinds of products to replenish 
exhausted stocks both at home and for export markets. This 
will necessitate, for many years after the war, an increased 
production, if Great Britain is to retain her home and export 
trade, amounting to at least 50 per cent, over and above the 
normal production required in pre-war times. In addition, 
we shall require to build, it is estimated, at least one million 



30 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

homes to house the workers under proper reasonable condi- 
tions. We shall also require to replenish our mercantile 
marine by many millions of tons of new ships. 

All these will make a demand upon our labour to such an 
extent that it will not be possible immediately to build 
additional factories and workshops, or to erect plant and 
machinery for the same, in order to provide for the 50 per 
cent, increased production demanded. We shall be short of 
factories and workshops, but we shall not be short of labour, 
for it is estimated that the termination of the war will release 
at least 11 J millions of men and women who are at present 
engaged either in active work on the field of battle or in 
workshops and factories and transport service necessitated 
to supply the army in the field with material and supplies 
required for the prosecution of the war. 

The raw material we shall require is mainly produced 
within the British Empire : therefore, so far as raw materials 
are concerned, and so far as labour is concerned, we shall 
not be in any serious difficulty, but we shall' be in difficulties 
with regard to providing the factories and workshops and 
machinery required to work up raw materials into the finished 
product. We shall have an overwhelming demand for goods : 
we shall have the necessary raw material and men and women 
required to make the goods, but we shall not have the equip- 
ment to manufacture the goods to meet the demand for the 
finished product, owing to the lack of workshops, factories, 
plant, and machinery. 

But even if we could immediately at the close of the war 
erect new factories and workshops, we must remember that 
it is estimated the cost of building would then be 75 per cent, 
more than pre-war rates ; and the cost of plant and machinery 
would be anything from 100 to 200 per cent, above pre-war 
rates. Therefore the erecting of new factories and equipping 
with new plant and machinery would seriously handicap our 
home manufacturers in their competition with manufacturers 
in Neutral and Allied countries, such as Holland and the 
United States, in supplying economically the demand in 
the Neutral markets of the world, which demand we had 
previously very largely ourselves supplied. But by the 
adoption of the six-hour working day we could automatically 
and immediately increase our production by at least 50 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 31 

per cent., just as effectively as if we had been able to 
build 50 per cent, additional factories, workshops, plant, and 
machinery. And we could do this without making any call on 
capital or any call on labour for the mere erection of these 
mechanical utilities. 

After the war, therefore, the times will be ripe for the 
six-hour working day of two shifts. There will be the demand 
and there will be the labour to meet the demand, and by 
working double shift we shall have the machinery sufficient 
to meet all our requirements. The n J million men and 
women released when the war is over cannot be found 
work on any permanent basis by means of philanthropic 
effort or subscription lists or good intentions. They can 
only be provided permanently with employment on sound 
economic lines of greater economy in production and of a 
greatly increased demand for products resulting from that 
economy in production. 

The six-hour day would also solve the question of the 
education of the boy and girl on their first leaving school : 
it would also solve the question of their physical training ; 
it would solve the question of military training, so that we 
could have a trained citizen army ; and it would solve the 
question of the outlook on life of our workers. Can we fancy 
anything more sordid than the life of a boy (or girl) who goes 
into the factory to-day under the stress of modern conditions ? 
His grandfather probably went to work at eight years of age. 
The present-day boy goes at fourteen years of age, and 
from then to seventy years of age (if he survive) he sees 
nothing but the factory, except for a few holidays, so few that 
he scarcely knows how to systematize and make the most of 
them, and his horizon, his whole outlook on life, is so stunted 
that he cannot live the life he was intended to live. It was 
never the Creator's intention to send us into this world as 
so many " hands " — He sent us with imagination, He sent 
us with the love of the country, He sent us with ideals and 
outlook, and these are simply stifled under our present 
industrial system. 

How can we wonder at what is called " Labour Unrest " ? 
If men and women were satisfied to endure quietly such 
conditions, then we might indeed despair of their future and 
the future of the British race. 



32 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Let us make the most of our English-speaking race, the 
finest race, in our opinion — of course, we may not be impartial 
judges as to that — on the face of the globe. Let us face 
the problem of the boy and girl of fourteen — it is a pressing 
one. What to do with boys from fourteen to sixteen is a 
most important problem. We know how, at that age, boys 
delight in getting into all sorts of scrapes and mischief. The 
training of boys in Boys' Brigades and the Boy Scout move- 
ment, for which we are indebted to General Sir Robert Baden- 
Powell, has proved a great remedy for that state of affairs. 
But if we could take the boy and girl at the age of fourteen 
and give them, say, two hours' schooling in the morning or 
afternoon, and continue this right on until the age of thirty, 
what could we not make of them ? Evening classes, we 
know, are a failure. The boy or girl attending these classes 
after a hard day's work is not in a receptive state of mind 
for instruction — both mind and body are weary, and therefore 
the evening classes are not a means to an end — they are a 
substitute and not a success. Education cannot be com- 
pleted at fourteen for the very simple reason that the necessary 
number of hours have not been devoted to it, and the number 
of subjects have not been covered that ought to be covered. 
But under the six-hour day scheme these two hours of instruc- 
tion on alternate mornings and afternoons could be continued 
from fourteen to eighteen, and from eighteen to twenty-four 
years of age, during which period the scholars would be 
receiving instruction of a still higher character, with physical 
training, and would be learning how to improve in their work. 
The very fact that during their working hours they are 
working with their hands would help their brain education, 
and eventually make them infinitely superior citizens. 

These two hours for education and training each day, from 
fourteen to thirty years of age, must be made absolutely 
compulsory, must be what we may call " conscripted " for the 
benefit of the whole nation. From fourteen to eighteen years of 
age, let it be extended education of what we may call the High 
School character, together with physical training ; from 
eighteen to twenty four years of age, education of what we 
may call the Technical and University character, with ex- 
tended physical training ; from twenty-four to thirty years 
of age, training for military service, for national service, for 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 33 

the duties of citizenship, preparing for membership of Village 
and Town Councils, and so on, and general study of all that 
goes to make for government, of ourselves, for ourselves, 
by ourselves, which ideal is very often merely a catch phrase. 
Then each of us after reaching thirty years of age will be 
a unit in a nation of educated, trained men and women, 
and within the limits of the law we can be trusted then to 
make the best use, for whatever appears good to us, of the 
two hours a day, for we do not think a conscription of time 
after thirty years of age would serve any useful purpose. 
The organizing of our time in this way would give us a fully 
educated nation, a nation capable of assuming responsibility, 
and with initiative. We should all be the better for it — we 
should have better bodies and better minds ; not even Univer- 
sity education could compare with the education which would 
be obtained under the above conditions simultaneously 
through hand and eye and brain. The man in the University 
gets his brain developed, but if he had simultaneously the 
training of hand which manual industries impose upon those 
who work in factories, his brain would be better for that disci- 
pline and for that training of hand and eye. We should 
produce under these conditions a population in the United 
Kingdom more highly trained, more hard-headed, and more 
practical than ever we can produce with a Public School 
education followed by that of a University. We believe 
most thoroughly in the combination of the training of hand 
and brain and eye simultaneously, and we believe most sin- 
cerely that a six-hour working day would solve that modern 
problem experienced in all our industries of the scarcity of 
men and women to fill the positions of foremen, managers, 
and directors. All through our industrial system this 
scarcity is so great, that unless the nation takes in hand the 
proper and efficient education of her people, with definite 
courses of study for definite careers, agriculture will suffer, 
manufactures will suffer, shipping will suffer, business will 
suffer, and the progress of the whole Empire will be retarded 
in competition with other nations. 

There is a great desire, and not an unreasonable desire, 
and certainly a healthy desire, on the part of the workman 
to take some share in the control of the factory he works 
in, and it is a desire that should be encouraged ; but we 

4 



34 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

cannot take a rank-and-file worker out of the factory to-day 
and put him on the Board of Directors and expect that he 
will be able to give valuable help and assistance. He must 
be trained ; we have all had to be trained. There must be 
healthy growth and development towards this end, for there 
can be no sound business without previous training. The 
desire to have a seat on Boards of Directors and a share in 
the control of the industries is a healthy sign ; but it would 
be madness and ruin to the industries of this country if our 
Boards of Directors were not composed of trained men, and 
only by better education shall we be able to satisfy that 
reasonable ambition of the employee-workers. 

We should also have, under such a system, a huge trained 
citizen army, without any of the waste that attaches to the 
barracks system and ordinary militarism. Let us remember 
that a standing army is always an incentive to war, whilst 
equally unpreparedness induces an attack. Into the members 
of this citizen army would be instilled that love of country 
and of home that would make them feel that both were worth 
fighting for, because their conditions of life would be such 
that they could take pride and pleasure in them. 

The girls, too, wo^ild be trained in domestic economy and 
in all that they must know to fit them for their part in life 
in the highest, fullest, and happiest sense. 

Now, human beings who have received all these advantages, 
at the age of thirty can be trusted to make the best use of 
their spare time. They will usually have a hobby. The 
man at thirty will perhaps keep a garden, and he will take 
a special pride in growing his own vegetables ; and if you 
consider the millions of cultivators who, if we had some such 
system, might be raising food-stuffs to-day in this way, what 
a relief such assistance would prove in the feeding of the 
people of the British Isles ! 

We should gain vastly in all directions by the introduction 
of the six-hour day ; the worker would have opportunities 
for recreation, for education, and for the achievement of a 
higher social standing. The term " factory hand " — that 
most hateful of terms, as if the " hand " possessed no soul, 
no intellect, and no ambition in life at all — that term would 
go. The factory employee, no longer a " hand," would go 
for six hours a day to the factory in the true spirit of service. 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 35 

He or she would receive for that six hours at least the same 
pay that he or she now receives for eight hours. Those 
now receiving one shilling an hour and working eight hours a 
day would, in future, receive is. 4d. per hour and work six 
hours, and would be able to produce as much in the six 
hours as is now produced in the eight, while the machinery, 
running in two six-hour shifts, would produce a vastly 
increased output. 

This is the very rough and crude outline of what we suggest 
should be done in order to meet industrial conditions after the 
war. With all modesty and sincerity, the six-hour working 
day proposal is submitted to careful consideration and vigorous 
criticism. Out of all this wreckage of war must ultimately 
come better and more ideal conditions of living for all classes, 
and under better conditions we can raise from our British 
stock the finest race the world has hitherto seen, and build 
up an * empire founded on principles of health, happiness, 
justice, and equal rights for all — an empire that will be the 
friend of all nations and the enemy of none. Then this war 
will not have been fought in vain, and fathers, brothers, and 
sons will not in vain have surrendered their lives ; mothers, 
wives, and sisters will not in vain have mourned the sacrifice 
of their dear ones, and Peace, never again to be broken, will 
smile once more, and kindly Nature will reward our labour 
with enough and to spare, and with lengthening life, 
deepening joy, and happiness for all. 



Ill 

TOOLS TO THE MEN WHO CAN 
USE THEM 

Huddersfield, January 19, 1918. 

[Addressing a meeting at Huddersfield, Lord Leverhulme ex- 
pressed the fullest confidence in the leaders of Labour and 
the representatives of Labour associations, who, in this crisis 
of the nation's history, would help to bring the war to a 
successful issue in " a clean peace." He proceeded :] 

We are a democracy, and a democratic country would not 
be worthy of its name if it could only think of war and the 
winning of wars. We have got to think also of peace, of 
what will come to this country when the war is over ; but 
surely if we can all trust the cause of Labour and Labour 
leaders to-day, we can equally trust Labour and those who 
lead Labour to do their duty when the war is over. And I 
am convinced we can equally trust the employers and all 
sections of the community. There is some sort of nervous 
dread about, that when the war is over there will be a cutting 
down of wages ; that there will be, as is thought — I do not 
agree in it — more workmen than jobs ; and on the other 
hand, that there is going to be some attempt to take the tools 
from the hands of men that are now using them, and who 
are experienced in the use of them, and hand the tools over 
to men who are inexperienced in the use of them. I am sure 
we would agree that either the cutting down of wages or in 
any way the worsening of the present conditions with respect 
to earnings would be disastrous to this country ; and it would 
be equally disastrous to have our industries taken out of 
the hands of those who have conducted them successfully 
and handed over to those who are inexperienced because 
untrained. 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 37 

It is a curious fact that this talk of the reorganization of 
the control of industry should come forward at the time when 
the great nation, our kindred across the Atlantic, is giving 
greater consideration to efficiency, and a larger output, and 
a cheaper cost of production, with higher wages and shorter 
hours. Now, any mistake on our part in the peaceful lines 
of commerce when this war is over would be only second as 
a disaster to a mistake on the field of battle. Either would 
be irredeemable. If a nation once loses its position in com- 
merce, it requires a matter of centuries to recover it. We 
have seen commerce in the Mediterranean pass from the 
Venetians to the Spaniards. Why ? Because the Venetians 
got an idea that they were strong and powerful and could 
dictate terms to the world. They thought they could make 
their own rules — selfish rules, entirely for the benefit of the 
Venetians. The trade passed to Spain, and Spain was in her 
glory at the time when she began to consider that she had 
arrived at the point when she could ignore the basis upon 
which her trade had been built up, and became more narrow 
and selfish, less considerate of the interests of others. Then 
the trade passed from Spain to Holland, and Holland, in 
turn, got to the pinnacle that we enjoy to-day, because 
although we are only 45 millions of people in this country, 
we can say with truth that we stand in advance in manu- 
factures, in trade and commerce, of any other nation in the 
world, whatever its population may be. 

Holland, in her turn, lost the trade to England, and we 
are now at the cross-roads, and have to consider carefully 
what way we take, or the pre-eminent position of British 
manufacturers, and the pre-eminent position of the workers, 
and of interest in them, may pass from our hands to those 
of other and more alert nations. You remember we are told 
that above all things we are to desire wisdom. And I do 
believe myself that what we in Lancashire call " nous," 
wisdom, is one of those rare faculties which, possessed in 
full, can take us through life to a realization of our wildest 
dreams and ambitions. But if we neglect wisdom, and rush 
to make changes without due consideration — very much like 
the proverbial bull in the china shop — then we only court 
wreckage and ruin and disaster. 

Now, what are our ambitions ? What are the ambitions 



38 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

of any true democratic people ? Surely our ambitions are a 
better life for each of us, more equal distribution of wealth, 
higher wages in order to attain to a better living, more plen- 
tiful supply of all that we require in the way of boots, shoes, 
and clothing, better homes — homes with gardens, homes that 
are really places in which a soul can live and expand, and 
not caves in which we can crouch out of the light. Well, 
these things will not drop down from the skies for us. They 
are not very much good until we can get them on the earth 
on which we live our narrow span of life. There is no other 
way. Some people see the curse of Adam in work. I believe 
it was the greatest blessing that ever came to us. Of all 
people, those without work are the most miserable. That is 
no reason why " A " should be worn down and fatigued, 
whilst " B /' without much work, apparently gets more than 
his fair share of the good things of this world. 

There is no logic in that, and I am bound to say I feel it 
very intensely that it has. to be recorded at the beginning of 
the twentieth century that nine-tenths of the wealth of the 
United Kingdom — and I believe the same equally applies to 
most other countries — should be possessed by less than one- 
tenth of the people, and that nine-tenths of the people should 
possess only one-tenth of the wealth. That is a system that 
cannot be defended for one single moment. But you must 
remember this, that through all the centuries we have had 
such a system of taxation in this country that the taxes have 
not been laid on the backs best able to bear them, but have 
been laid on the worker. I remember very well years 
ago, when I was a Liberal candidate, pointing out that, 
including the rates on the house, and if the man happened 
to be a moderate drinker and a moderate smoker, and his 
wife enjoyed her cup of tea, and so on, the rates and 
taxes collected from the workman were from 4s. to 5s. in the 
pound of his income ; whilst the contributions of the 
wealthy man at that time could not be totalled up to any 
more than is, in the pound. The income tax at that time 
was about 6d. or 8d. in the pound, there was no super-tax, 
no graduated death duties, and no excess profits tax. 
But now how do we stand ? If a man is wealthy, he 
has 5s. in the pound to pay in income tax, 3s. 6d. in the 
pound super-tax ; if he possesses a fortune of a million, it 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 39 

will have to pay 20 per cent, in death duties. Take the 
death duties as payable on an insurance basis (that is the 
easiest way to reckon it), and you will find that it will bring 
his total taxation to-day (1917-18) up to 12s. 6d. in the pound. 
We have only had this system a few years ; but I venture 
to say — and this is apart from excess profits tax — that under 
the present system of taxation it can no longer be said that 
the wealthy are not bearing their fair share of the burden 
of the country. 

I do not say they are bearing more than they ought to 
bear ; but I feel proud of the fact that the opportunity is 
now given to each man in the country, whatever his riches 
may be, whether he is a weekly wage-earner or a wealthy 
man, to bear his fair share of the burden of the country. The 
wealthy are bearing it in the form of taxation, and in every 
other form — by their sons fighting in the trenches, and in all 
other ways. We never were a more united nation, a more 
equal nation on the basis of taxation ; and we ought to be 
proud of it. But the echo of the former complaint still rever- 
berates around the land, that the rich are not paying their 
share. That has ceased to be the fact. And it is not really 
the fact that land does not pay its fair proportion, that 
property does not pay its fair share, that the incomes of the 
wealthy do not pay their fair share. All this we have 
altered very largely since 1896. The years 1909 and 1910 
were the crucial years, when a big advance was made ; but 
the biggest advance of all has been made since the war began. 
I want us to bear that fact in mind, because, believe me, it 
has accomplished more to improve the conditions of the people 
of this country, to raise their spirits, and to give them an 
outlook on life, than anything in the century preceding it. 
I am confident and happy to acknowledge that that is so ; 
but our hearts, having begun to show sympathy in one direction, 
must show it in all. That is the rule of nature. You cannot 
be warm-hearted and sympathetic in one direction only ; 
you must be in all. You cannot be cold and brutal on one 
question ; you are cold and brutal on all. That is the law 
of life. We have also seen the Health Insurance Acts, and 
I had the honour of carrying two bills preceding the 
Government Acts — the Old Age Pensions Act and the 
Payment of Members Act — which latter gives the means to 



40 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

any constituency to select its member without consideration 
as to whether he can afford to pay his railway fares 
to London and his lodgings when he is in London. Just 
think what it has meant to give old age pensions, im- 
proved education, medical attendance on school children, 
and health insurance. The total expenditure on these — 
education, old age pensions, labour bureaux, and health 
insurance — is 61 millions a year. That amount is taken out 
of the taxes (mainly income tax) and distributed throughout 
amongst the workers. 

It is thought by some that democracy means absolute 
uniformity, and you will notice one of the questions put by 
the Prime Minister yesterday, in reply to a questioner, about 
the conscription of wealth and the acquisition of wealth, 
was not answered by the questioner. The Prime Minister 
had asked whether equality of wealth ideal was to apply all 
round, whether we were to be bound by the ideal of the skilled 
engineer receiving the same wages as the labourer. He was 
not answered ; but if equality all round would achieve any- 
thing to better the conditions of life, I am sure the skilled 
engineer and all of us would agree that a system that made 
for the greatest good of the greatest number would be a right 
system in a democratic country. But, believe me, human 
nature is founded upon very distinct principles. First of 
all, we are social. We love to live in communities, in towns. 
Very few of us love to live in scattered districts. The men 
in the backwoods of Australia are always longing to go to 
Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, or wherever their 
big city may be. But whilst we are social in our habits and 
love our fellow-men, we are individualistic in that we love 
our own homes. We do not want to have our homes in a 
barracks, there to live a barracks life with others. Each one 
of us feels that we have an individuality. We are not only 
a body, but we have a soul, and our individuality wants room 
for expression. I always think the earning power of a man, 
whether in the factory or in the office, whether he is or is not 
the proprietor of the business, is in proportion to his mental 
attributes. As the young tree sends its roots in every direc- 
tion searching for nourishment and water, so does human 
nature send out its roots to feed its soul. If you were to say 
that the man in the factory must not do some duty apart 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 41 

from the workshop, and that the employer must not under- 
take some task apart from his business, you would cramp 
the aspirations and desires of every human being. We have 
to attempt to satisfy our souls as well as our bodies by our 
effort. Take inspiration for that effort away, and we should 
just become automata. 

But whilst we recognize these two attributes, there is a 
great rule that has been laid down by the greatest Founder 
of social institutions the world has ever seen. And He laid 
it down two thousand years ago, " Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself." If we desire that we would not be crippled 
ourselves, then we ought not to cripple our neighbours. We 
would like to have room to expand ourselves. So ought 
our neighbours, and our neighbours are those we come in 
daily contact with in works and in factories We are on a 
level as citizens of this country. We are all producers, and 
equally consumers, and it is only when we recognize this 
that we can consider the idea that there should be some read- 
justment of the productive w r ork of the country. There are 
those who affirm that industries should be put under Govern- 
ment control. Now, I do not know whether Government 
control is going to be called scientific management, whether 
it is that this management by a Government would be more 
scientific than management by an individual. The only 
scientific management that I have any belief in, and under 
which as far as I see to-day everything could be successful, 
is a knowledge of human nature. You cannot force human 
nature. If you set tasks for human nature, as seems to be 
the basis of what is called scientific management, it will 
surely break down. Human nature can respond enormously 
to sympathy, to a kindly touch, to a participation in the 
fruits of its industry, to a share of the profits it has helped 
to create. The only scientific management there can be, in 
my opinion, is that holding between employer and employed, 
one to the other, and each for the other ; on those lines 
only can we have scientific management. Now, is that really 
to come about in other ways than we have developed ? Sup- 
posing we were to take all our industries and hand them over 
to the Government. You could no more put in chains and 
chain to the business the present proprietor than you could 
the present operatives of the machines. Such a thing would 



42 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

be slavery and unthinkable. Whilst you could take over 
the machines, the mechanical apparatus, the soul of the 
owner you could not chain and fasten to the industry. The 
industry would pass into the hands of men who were not 
used to the tool, and who had no experience as to how to use 
it. And remember how narrow the margin is for economical 
production. Do we ever think for one moment how narrow 
it is? 

Now, I think we were agreed that we want more of all 
the good things of life if we can only produce them. Ninety 
per cent, of the consumers of this country are the workmen 
themselves. I am certain I have not over-stated that. There- 
fore, under the present system the workman encourages his 
own production where he lives. I knew a man whose father 
put him as a draper in his own draper's shop. On the death 
of the father — the man was then forty — he sold the shop and 
went to study medicine, took his degree, and served in Edin- 
burgh as a doctor for the remainder of his life. He is still 
alive. That man followed not his father, .who thought there 
was nothing finer than the drapery business. If our businesses 
are going to be nationalized, are we going to be requisitioned 
to work in our own factory ? Are we going to be told that 
they want so many engineers, so many people in woollen 
factories, and that they must have them ? If that system 
is going to prevail, in any case, whatever the system may 
be, it will be a limitation of individual liberty ; it will not 
produce higher wages ; it will not produce shorter hours ; 
it will not produce as cheap commodities. Just to refresh 
our memories ! The worker negotiates himself, or through his 
union, for the highest rate of pay. And the employer knows 
that the rate is one that he must pay, and produce goods on, 
either at a profit or at a loss. He knows that if there is a 
loss, no one will drop a tear over him ; he will slide into the 
Bankruptcy Court, and later on into some forgotten scrap- 
heap of the world. But when the workman as producer 
has received his pay, and handed that pay over to his wife, 
he is now a consumer, and as a consumer, his wife, rightly 
and properly, and he himself, rightly and properly, must 
spend that money where he or she can get the best value in 
quality and price. And, therefore, you have this position — 
the producer of goods at the risk of the employer, who 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 43 

takes all the risk ; you have the spending of the wages in the 
cheapest market that the world can provide ; and between 
these two comes the employer. 

Could there be any better system devised by any man 
placed in a Government office in one of those London hotels, 
in a department run under a system that they call " minuting, " 
under which a document is sent round, and to which each 
official adds a little note, and about three months later it 
comes back, and the whole thing is forgotten ? Under that 
system, there would be nobody to stand the loss but the 
consumer. Under that system, if the goods were badly 
bought, we should still have to pay. And assuming we make 
this " advance," the outside world would not move at the 
same speed. If the wages were put up, they would be added 
to the cost to the consumer, and the consumer would have 
to bear the cost of those goods, well or badly bought. The 
success of the business would be no concern of the man 
in the office : his salary would be assured, and if he was not 
suitable, his services would be dispensed with, and another 
man, equally unsuitable, could be put in his place. Then, 
how deep-rooted in our individual nature is the love of liberty, 
which gives us the right to expand. If we are chafing at 
all to-day, it is that we feel we have not sufficient liberty ; 
that we want more liberty, not less. And any error of wisdom, 
any lack of " nous " that we might be carried to in a depar- 
ture of such magnitude, would lead to untold unrest, and 
our children's children would not call blessings down upon 
us for it. 

The individualistic system is the system we are on to-day. 
We have the employer, whether he is a limited company or 
an individual ; he stands between these two great forces — 
the producer, the wage-earner and consumer — and he has 
to have a very intense mind to enable him to make a 
profit between the high rate of wages, ever increasing, the 
shorter hours, ever reducing, both, I am happy to say, necessary 
adjuncts to civilization. Between these, and the demand 
from the consumer for ever better and cheaper goods, he 
may or may not make a profit. Well, as to the supposed 
profit, if he does make a profit, I am sure in any case such 
profit is grossly exaggerated, because our income tax returns 
do not show (as is known to every one in the business world) 



44 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

the losses of the unsuccessful. If we had the returns side 
by side, as we should have in an ordinary balance-sheet, if 
the nation's balance-sheet not only showed the income of 
the successful, but the losses of the unsuccessful, you would 
be astonished to find that the average earnings of the employers 
in this country, over and above the lowest minimum bank 
rate of interest on their capital, are so small that you could 
not replace them for the same money by salaried men, who 
could be depended upon to look so closely after production, 
keen buying, and strict economies. 

I am convinced of that, and you would find that the profits 
of trade and commerce are much less than are imagined. 
But suppose that was not the case. Here and there is a man 
of extraordinary ability for making money. Generally that 
ability comes more from extraordinary ability for avoiding mis- 
takes than from anything else. But there are such men. It is 
a faculty that is very rare. I am convinced from my own 
observation that there is less than one per ioo people who 
would be capable of running a business, however small, and 
making a profit in it; that there is less than one in 100,000 
who would be capable of running a large business. And you 
know the number of men who have made those fortunes 
which seem to be so great — the Fords, the Carnegies, the 
Rockefellers — they are very few, less than one per hundred 
millions out of the 1,200 millions there are in the world. Not 
only are they very few, but very largely their fortunes have 
been realized through a combination of fortuitous circum- 
stances. Invariably, without a single exception that I know 
of, the men who have made these colossal fortunes have 
actually made them by special service to the public, and by 
producing a cheaper and ever cheaper article. Not one of 
them has been able to make money by advancing prices. 
The only time that money is made is when, by improved 
processes of manufacture, prices can be lowered. You find 
that without a single exception. Now, if we change all this, 
and we are to have an idea that by putting our industries 
on some other footing we should mend matters, I would like 
us to consider exactly the basis that we are on, before we make 
the change. I would like to remind you of this, that we have 
not as manufacturers, we have not in my opinion even as 
Trade Unions, considered sufficiently the human element in 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 45 

our industries. The manufacturer has devoted enormous 
efforts by means of science towards cheaper and ever cheaper 
production. Why, it is within the lifetime of most of us 
in this room when electricity was not the useful and bene- 
ficial servant of man that electricity is to-day. The power 
of Niagara ran to waste, and also the power of the Victoria 
Falls, and the waterways on the Continent and in America. 
Now, by means of science, we know that that waste power 
is equivalent to the efforts of millions of human beings, and 
we have harnessed it and utilized it as our servant. 

We have to-day, I believe, in the United Kingdom, by 
means of steam-power and machinery, the productive capacity 
of over 1,000 millions of human beings working twenty-four 
hours a day, and by means of that power we produce, by 
possibly 14 or 15 millions of human beings, all that could 
be produced by the thousand million producers without 
that power. But, as I say, there was in the past a great 
power running to waste, and some of it is running to waste 
yet (such as the ocean tides), in spite of us. I venture to say 
there is not one of us in this room who without fatigue, in 
terms of thought and organized inspiration and aspiration, 
is not capable of infinitely more for the common good than 
we are doing to-day ; but we have never been studied ; the 
best has not been brought out of us. We have been made 
into automata to go to our work at six or seven in the morning 
and finish at five or six in the evening. And it has become 
almost a fetish with some of us that the less they can do in 
that period, not only the easier is it for themselves but the 
better for their mates, because they will be leaving so much 
more for their mates. And on the employers' side it has 
been equally a fetish that the lower the wages paid, the longer 
the hours worked, the cheaper the product would be. They 
are both wrong, absolutely wrong. But is it to be wondered 
at that under this system the idea should have leaped into the 
minds of some trade unionists as to the restriction of output ? 
I do not know whether you have read recently what has been 
said by a great Trade Union leader in America. I want you 
to consider this very carefully, because we are in competition 
with America. Don't think for a moment that our Allies 
in the trenches will be our allies in commerce. It is in noble 
devotion to the cause of democracy that the Americans are 



46 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

throwing themselves into the war. They have no territory 
in dispute, no object to pursue in European politics. They 
are doing it from the highest ideals of democracy and to 
free Europe from the hell of militarism. They are not children 
who are doing this, and when this war is over, and we come 
to consider the trade of the world, whatever ideals we have 
in this country, we shall have to reckon with the ideals the 
Americans have. 

I will read to you what Mr. Gompers, the President of 
the American Federation of Labour, representing many 
millions of working men, said in a recent speech : " We are 
not going to have the trouble here that Britain had through 
restriction of production." He is speaking for Labour, not 
for the masters ; but you might think he was speaking for 
the masters. " There has not been any restriction of output 
for over thirty years in America. We, in the United States, 
have followed an entirely different policy." Well, I can say 
that I have been to America, and found a man in charge of 
five lathes, automatic machines. I remember asking, when 
I got back, why a man should not look after five lathes here, 
and I was told the Union rules were against it. That is a 
mistake. I do not want you to believe that I think the 
Unions are not doing good work according to their lights. 
I have never met a Trade Union official yet who has not im- 
pressed me with his sincerity in desiring to do the best for 
his members ; but it is a mistaken policy, that is all. It is 
exactly the same as many mistakes on the side of the masters ; 
but they are both wrong. " We say to the employers " — 
there is no doubt about letting employers know — " bring in 
all the improved machinery and new tools you can find. 
We will help you to improve them still more, and we will 
get the utmost product out of them ; but what we insist on 
is the limitation of hours of labour for the individual to eight." 
This might be my speech if you take the eight and put it at 
six. It is exactly what I am preaching. I believe in England 
we are ripe for a six-hour day in many industries. I have 
had experience of eight hours for twenty-five years ■» The 
same type of people who say that six hours is impossible, 
said eight hours was impossible, said that ten hours was im- 
possible, and that twelve hours was impossible, and so on 
at each stage of reduction from a fourteen-hour to the eight- 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 47 

hour day, so that I am not made despondent by the fact that 
I am told it is impossible. 

" Work two shifts if you please, or work your machinery 
all round the twenty-four hours if you like, with three shifts, 
and we will agree, but we insist on the normal working day, 
with full physical effort. We will not agree to that over- 
work, producing the effect of over-fatigue, which destroys 
the maximum of production, undermines the health of the 
individual worker, and destroys his capacity for full indus- 
trial effort." That is almost word for word what I have 
said, except for the eight instead of six. We want higher 
wages, shorter hours, a larger production of everything, so 
that we can get a cheaper cost. Without that cheaper cost 
we have no funds to pay higher wages. Higher wages are 
merely a shadow unless you have lower costs giving increased 
purchasing power with the higher wages ; and I believe with 
that and with shorter hours we can realize all that we are 
striving for. I am told that at Ford's works they employ 
40,000 persons. A boy worker can get £1 per day, and all 
employees are paid double Trade Union rates ; and there 
I am told that it is the exception for the workman not to have 
his own motor-car. Why should not the workmen have 
their own motor-cars ? They will not get motor-cars under 
a system of restricted output ; there won't be enough to go 
round. Every time we increase the output and reduce the 
cost we have a fund out of which we can increase the wages. 
It ought to be possible for men to have more leisure than 
they have to-day, when they commence work at six, or seven, 
or eight in the morning and work on until five or five-thirty in 
the evening. More leisure than that is an absolute essential if 
we are to live a complete, full life of citizenship. I say without 
hesitation, and I say it is within reach, now that we have 
got the wages up, we can afford automatic machinery, and 
so by means of automatic machinery we can produce more 
goods. 

Everybody should be given an interest in the results of 
their work, and then they can have more satisfaction in it. 
And there could be more relief for the employer, so that 
employers also could devote themselves to a realization of 
shorter hours, with harder work during the time they are at 
work without fatigue, cheaper production and more leisure. 



48 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Well, now, that is what we want, but what are we drifting 
to ? I will show you. Gompers said : " It is thirty years 
since we had limitation of output/' and so I will go back 
thirty years, when they dropped it and we began it. It is 
sometimes said that a dog returns to its own vomit. It seems 
to me we were a dog that returned to another dog's vomit. 
In 1886 the output of a certain class of worker in the United 
Kingdom was 312 units ; in 1906 (twenty years after) this output 
had been reduced to 275, and in 1912 (that is the last recorded 
year before the war) it had dropped to 244 — from 312 to 244 
in twenty-six years in the United Kingdom. In the United 
States, whilst in 1886 the output per worker was at 400, 
it went up to 596 in 1906, and in 1912 to 600, so that whilst 
we went down the United States have gone up 50 per cent. 
But we have Englishmen in other parts of the world — we 
have them in Australia. Do you mean to tell me that the 
Australians are not as strong trade unionists as an}' others ? 
And the same applies to the New Zealander and the Canadian. 
We all know they are strong trade unionists. In Australia 
in 1886 the output per head was 333, in -1906 462, in 1912 
542, more than double per man what the workers are pro- 
ducing in the United Kingdom. Yes, but the wages are 
double. I want to tell you as the output goes up the wages 
go up ; as the output goes down, if the wages go up, the pur- 
chasing power goes down. In New Zealand the output per 
worker increased from 359 in 1886 to 470 in 1906, and 
503 in 1912, and in Canada from 341 to 472. Of all 
the English-speaking races all over the world, we, in the 
United Kingdom, are the only ones who have fallen behind 
in our production per head of the workers. And is our con- 
dition improved under this policy ? Are we satisfied and 
happy with it ? 

I think if any of you have gone, as I have, to Australia, 
and seen the homes of the workers — seen them having their 
summer holidays on their beaches with their wives and 
families — you would see that their wages are not improperly 
used. Well, but for it all, they would tell us that increased 
output is the road to betterment and prosperity. Australia 
settled with the I.W.W., put a number of them in gaol, and 
this under a Labour Government. " Ca' canny " is a canker. 
I want to say how sincerely and earnestly I am, and have 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 49 

been all my life, with every master and worker in this room, 
although I cannot say whether there are more masters or 
more workers. I cannot say, but I do think this, that 
Lancashire men and Yorkshire men have very similar views, 
and very similar aspirations. 

What I want is that we shall just inquire, if any change 
is to be made, whether it is right, and the first step to lead 
in the right direction. I do not want to claim that what 
I have said this afternoon represents the whole Alpha and 
Omega of this great question. I have only touched the fringe 
of it, but, believe me, the truth I started with is an absolute 
truth — that we shall not get our clothes, and boots and shoes, 
and houses dropping down from the sky, or jumping up from 
the ground like mushrooms. We will have to work for them, 
and in working for them, it is our business to consider how 
we can produce them with the least fatigue, the utmost 
leisure, the greatest cheapness, with the largest volume, so 
that out of the things created in this way there shall be an 
ever-increasing demand, so that however great this output, 
it shall all be absorbed ; a demand for all the necessaries, 
comforts, and luxuries of life as much from the workers as 
from those who are so-called masters, with such a fair and 
right system of graduated taxation, that those who have 
the ability to make money may utilize their creative powers 
or their opportunities to bear a strong man's burden of 
taxation, and so each in proportion to his strength will bear 
the taxation of the country. Working on these lines, I see 
an England where we can work a reasonable number of hours, 
where our children shall receive the fullest and most complete 
education — the children of the workman just as good an 
education as the children of the employer — so that there 
shall be every opportunity for all of us ; that there shall 
be a ladder for every man, and he shall be left to climb it 
if he wishes. 



IV 
NATIONAL POSSIBILITIES 

London, July 10, 1917. 

[As the guest of the Aldwych Club, Lord Leverhulme began a 
speech on after-war problems by referring to his happy busi- 
ness relations, extending over many years, with the Chairman, 
Sir Thomas Dewar. He told a story of a Lancashire man 
who, when dining at a restaurant, was served with a lobster 
which had only one claw. The waiter's explanation was : 
" Well, sir, lobsters are very pugnacious animals, sir, and 
when they fight, sir, they sometimes lose a claw." " That's 
all right," replied the customer; " take this chap away, and 
bring me the winner." Their Chairman was a winner. He 
had nabbed the picture of " The Macnab " — painted by an 
artist of whom the whole British race was proud — and had 
thus prevented it going out of the country. Lord Leverhulme 
went on to say :] 

We have met here as business men, I take it, just to have 
a short conversation upon the problems we shall have to 
face when this war is over. And, perhaps, in order that we 
may consider the problems the better, it would not be amiss 
to note what has been our attitude in the past towards the 
race with whom we are now at war, and whom, we know, 
when this war of armaments is over, we shall have to meet 
in a war of commerce. You know wa are very easygoing 
people. Any one who represents " John Bull " portrays 
him as a very genial and jovial fellow ; but he always looks 
prosperous. Our attitude has been to magnify and extol 
the race with whom we are at war, and to consider them 
patterns of industry and organization and of every commercial 
virtue, and we have rather run down ourselves. We have 
thought little of ourselves and a great deal of Germany. I 
think this ought to be inquired into. The attributes of a 

60 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 51 

nation will continue after the war is over, and when we come 
into conflict on commerce, we shall then be helped by our 
natural attributes as they will be helped by their natural 
attributes. 

Now, in the past, certain inventions have been discovered, 
and the whole of modern civilization is built up on those 
inventions. How many of those inventions have the Germans 
given to the world, and how many have the English-speaking 
races on this side of the Atlantic and the other side of the 
Atlantic given to the human race ? I am not sure whether 
you would like me to give you a list, but I think it has a bearing, 
from this point of view. We are going to carry our inventive- 
ness into commerce after the war as we have done before the 
war. If you consider the implements of warfare the Germans 
are directing against us — the submarine, the aeroplane, the 
torpedo, the machine gun, breech-loaders, Dreadnoughts, and 
explosive mines — they are all the inventions of the English- 
speaking race, either on this side or on the other side of the 
Atlantic. The names of the inventors are British ; they have 
no Germanic sound about them. 

Apart from these, the world owes a great deal to the 
English-speaking inventor in many other directions. In 
the peaceful fields of industry the list is still longer. Not 
only have we been inventing implements of destruction ; the 
inventions by English-speaking races include such articles 
of construction as the steam-engine, the locomotive, the air 
brake, the steamship, cotton-spinning machines, telephones, 
the telegraph, the sewing-machine, the typewriter, the phono- 
graph, photographic films, motor-cars, pneumatic tyres, 
bicycles, vulcanized rubber, modern dyes, electric lighting, 
incandescent lamps, electric storage batteries, electric 
tramcars, harvesting machinery, reapers and binders, disc 
ploughs, threshing-machines, washing-machines, anaesthetics, 
antiseptics, new kinds of steel, compressed-air tools, and a 
further long list of improvements which, if I attempted to 
go through, would wear out your patience. Even the 
German so-called Kultur is the philosophy of Machiavelli, 
an Italian of the fifteenth century. It is a philosophy long 
ago discarded by all civilized people. Far from being new, 
it is more than four hundred years old, and Germany has 
simply revived it. 



52 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

What has been the German method ? Young Germans 
have been sent here to learn our methods, accepting a low 
salary, or no salary at all, to get into our offices and works, 
spy out all they could, and then return to their own country, 
armed mentally with English methods, which they have 
turned to account in their export and home trade, thus 
reaping a rich harvest from the brains of the English- 
speaking race. The Germans have never considered it a 
crime to plunder the brains and steal the ideas of other 
people ; but that form of stealing is as much a larceny as if 
a person picked another person's pocket. We are a good- 
tempered race, and the German laughed up his sleeve at our 
over-trustfulness. WTien Bessemer, the English-born son 
of a Frenchman, invented his process of manufacturing 
steel, inquiries were made from Germany and representatives 
came over to inquire into the system. They returned with 
drawings, but never paid one penny for a licence to use them. 
Recently I saw in the paper the case of a man who, long 
before this war, invented a machine of great utility. He 
received an inquiry from Germany, together with an offer 
to become his agents. When he supplied them with drawings 
and all the necessary information, they began straight away 
to dispute his patents, and gave him the choice of either a 
costly lawsuit or a free hand for them to benefit by the pro- 
duct of his brains. This is a sample of their methods. 

All the great inventions of the past are the children of 
our brain, and these are only the elder brothers of the family 
of similar inventions which will succeed them after the war. 
And all we ask from our Government is reasonable protection 
for the brains of the country — not protection in any other 
sense. I am an ardent believer in Free Trade, but our brains 
have not been protected. When we are taunted with the 
story of aniline dyes and how the Germans exploited them, 
the whole tale ought to be told. It was not the fault of 
English manufacturers. It was the fault of the taxation 
of spirits for industrial purposes, which made it impossible 
for us to use those spirits in the production of aniline dyes. 
The German Government gave their manufacturers cheap 
spirits for industrial purposes, free of duty. The British 
Government only within the last few years, whilst the 
present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 53 

made it possible for British industries requiring industrial 
alcohol to obtain the same free of duty. Such conditions 
as that to which I have referred no British manufacturer 
should be obliged to suffer under. 

Again, foreigners have enjoyed exceptional terms from 
our Government for foreign shipping, and even as late as 
last July the British Chambers of Commerce had to pass 
resolutions asking that British shipping should receive the 
same privileges as foreign shipping. I am not going further 
into that. I only want to emphasize this fact, that we have 
the right brains and the right intelligence, and desire only 
the right opportunity, and, after all, this inventiveness owes 
its origin to the principle of government by the people. 
The liberty-loving English-speaking race, living under free 
institutions and free government, by encouraging individu- 
ality produces inventive genius. We are not willing to be 
dragooned and stifled. If we were to submit to that, our 
inventiveness would leave us and we would sink to the level 
of our enemies. 

This is the position — how are we to make the best of this 
fine material we have here ? Which way are we going to 
make the best use of it on both sides of the Atlantic ? I 
say emphatically that the present antagonism between 
Capital and Labour ought not to exist. Labour and Capital 
must be fused into one. If Capital and Labour are wise, 
they will abolish all distrust and antagonism between each 
other. Capital wants the largest possible return on capital, 
and is not reluctant to receive it with the least possible 
exertion. Workmen want the biggest wages and the shortest 
hours, and are not averse to these being realized with a 
minimum of exertion. These twin brothers in wants have 
got to recognize they cannot, either of them, achieve their 
aims by the methods adopted in the past. The highest 
return on capital cannot be obtained by means of the longest 
hours and the lowest wages for labour, nor can the highest 
wages and the best returns for labour be obtained by any 
policy of " ca' canny." 

The relations of Capital and Labour have been wrangled 
over until all arguments are threadbare. Why should not 
the worker be also a Capitalist in joint partnership with the 
so-called employer ? The division of profits between the 



54 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

two in the past has not been on such a basis as could make 
Labour feel that it genuinely shared in the undertaking. 
We want to do away with that, Profit-sharing is liable 
to misconception. Co-Partnership is the one basis of com- 
mercialism under which we can have that comradeship 
between all classes in commerce that we have seen displayed 
between all classes and all ranks in the trenches. That is 
the spirit > and if that spirit could be evoked in fighting the 
enemies of the Empire on the field of battle, surely it would 
be equally forthcoming in fighting the enemies of trade and 
commerce in this country — men who tried to combat us in 
trade and commerce by unfair means. It only wants us to 
recognize the great fact that we are every one of us — so-called 
employers and workmen — born with the same hopes and 
ambitions and imbued with the same aspirations. Some of 
us may have been stifled by wrong surroundings when we 
were young ; some may never have been given an opportunity 
to grow ; but wherever there has been the opportunity of 
growth and development amongst the English-speaking 
races, whether at home or overseas, you find what has been 
termed the building of castles in the air and the attempted 
realization of ideals. 

Modern industrialism is not very old — not two centuries 
old, and that is a short time in the history of the world. 
Prior to that man and master worked side by side. The 
master knew his Jack and Tom and Joe, and Maggie and 
Jane and Mary — in fact, every employee in his place. And 
they all knew him ; they all came to him in their troubles. 
He knew their domestic worries and anxieties, and he helped 
and encouraged them. That worked well until, by the intro- 
duction of machinery, the business became so great as to 
render a continuance of the position impossible. The office 
might be in London and the factory in the Midlands, or even 
overseas. You could not to-day produce things in any other 
way. With enormous factories and machinery came of 
necessity a huge organization in which men working in the 
factory hardly ever saw the so-called employer. 

The only thing that can restore to any degree that con- 
dition of two centuries ago is Co-Partnership. 

[Here Lord Leverhulme dealt with essential conditions of 
Co-Partnership (see under that heading, p. 95) and with 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 55 

the Six-hour Day on lines similar to those of the article 
under that heading, pp. 14 to 35. He concluded as follows :] 

That is the outline, the very feeble outline, of the vision 
I have" of meeting industrial conditions after the war. We 
shall need to develop the inventiveness of our race. Do 
you know how we got many of our great inventions ? From 
the operatives themselves. The safety-valve on the boiler 
was invented by a youth who was set to watch a gauge, and 
whose instructions were that when the indicator rose to a 
certain height he was to open the valve, let off the steam, 
and so reduce the pressure. He got impatient — he wanted 
to be doing something else besides just watching, and he 
found that by the arrangement of certain weights in a certain 
fashion the valve would automatically open itself at the 
precise moment necessary, and he could go away and attend 
to something else. He experimented until he had ascertained 
the exact weight required to do this successfully, and from 
that youth's idea was evolved the safety-valve as we know 
it to-day. Many similar valuable inventions are continually 
being made by the men who can see and appreciate most 
keenly the assistance they will give — the men who are con- 
stantly in touch with the actual machinery. 

Now, the greatest stimulus to the production of this in- 
ventiveness we wish to develop is a share in the profits. 
It would humanize our industries, it would make for 
brotherhood, and, above all, it would make the working 
man no longer antagonistic to Capital, because he would 
be a capitalist himself. 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 

Woolwich, November 30, 1909. 

[" With regard to the great question of Co-Partnership, it is 
doubtful whether any one in the world, in this or any other 
age, has done so much as Sir William Lever has in this direc- 
tion." Such was the testimony of Sir John Cockburn, speaking 
as Chairman at one of the addresses reproduced in the present 
volume. That address will be found in its place immedi- 
ately following the one here presented, which was delivered 
to the Woolwich Chamber of Commerce at the New Town 
Hall, Woolwich.] 

The subject of " Co-Partnership or Profit-Sharing.? " is 
one that has always had the greatest interest for myself. 
Looking backward, I find it will be twenty-two years next 
March since I first made public utterance on this subject ; 
and therefore, before I come to describe the particular method 
that has been adopted by myself, I would like, with your 
permission, to take you over the ground that I travelled 
during those twenty-two years before arriving at our present 
basis, just as one wishing to travel to a far country would 
desire first to spread out a map and see which routes were 
possible, what rivers had to be crossed, mountains to be 
scaled, torrents to be forded, and so on. So I will endeavour 
to go with you to-night through some of the aspects of this 
great question as they presented themselves to me ; for, 
believe me, the margin of safety, viewing safety as the stability 
of industries of this country and the well-being of the workers 
in them, is a very narrow one. Indeed, it would be very 
easy to make the position of the workers infinitely worse 
under Profit-Sharing or Partnership schemes than under 
the present usual wages arrangement, if one did not exercise 
the utmost care. 



60 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

At present, Labour is in the position of Debenture Holder 
on all industries. Placed in that position by the law, if any 
firm becomes bankrupt, even before the Debenture Holder 
receives his money, wages must be paid in full, and, there- 
fore, Labour stands in the position of Debenture Holder. 

The three forces that go for production are : Capital, 
Labour, and Management. I know sometimes these are 
separated and made into two forces, called Labour and 
Capital, but this is not a true division. There are really 
three forces, Capital, Labour and Management, notwith- 
standing the fact that very often Capital and Management 
are comprised in the same person. 

Now, the position is this, that Labour receives a fixed rate 
of wages ; Capital receives its fixed rate of interest ; and the 
product is a product of varying value, according to market 
conditions, and affected by the harvests of raw materials all 
over the world. Consequently, when you have two fixed 
factors and a variable product, it is obvious that the reward 
of Management, called profit, must be a variable quantity — 
sometimes it may be great, sometimes it may be small, and 
very often it must disappear entirely, only showing loss. 
Now, that is the position to-day, and practically the position 
of Labour is this — it comes to the employer and says, " I 
can't store my labour ; my labour has to be sold each day, 
and must be turned to account each day. If I do not make 
use of to-day's labour to-day, I cannot do so to-morrow. I 
cannot store it until a favourable opportunity for selling it 
occurs. I must sell each day's labour to-day — the day in 
which I exist. Now, with Capital, and with commodities, 
you may be able to stand the fluctuating markets ; I cannot 
— my commodity won't keep. In addition to that, I have a 
wife and family to keep, besides myself, and I must be assured 
every week of my weekly wage. Whether the product I 
produce for you realizes profit or loss for you, I have nothing 
to do with that ; I cannot have anything to do with it. I 
must be assured of my weekly wage, and if there is a profit, 
you are welcome to it. If there is a loss, I cannot help you 
to share it." Now, this is the attitude Labour takes up, 
and rightly takes up. It practically becomes a Debenture 
Holder. Remember that is also the position of the Debenture 
Holder. The Debenture Holder says, " I do not want big 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 61 

profits ; I want an assured rate of interest with absolute 
security. I would rather have a sure 4 per cent, or 4! per 
cent, on this business than I would have the Ordinary Shares, 
with a possible 10 per cent, or a possible nothing ; there- 
fore give me Debentures." Therefore Labour and the Deben- 
ture Holder stand side by side. Labour and the Debenture 
Holder, in asking for no share in losses, are placed in that 
position, relinquishing voluntarily, or of necessity, in order 
to maintain their security, any prospective share of profits. 
Now if we, therefore, approach this subject, we might find — 
if we approach it in the wrong way, we should certainly find 
— all we had done was to change the position. On any attempt 
to restrict Management from the receipt of profits, jointly 
created, Management becoming a fixed charge, Capital 
remaining a fixed charge, but with the produce still variable 
in value, then Labour would have to be the one that had to 
take the variable remainder. So that this is manifestly 
one of those propositions which one has to handle with the 
utmost care in order to be perfectly sure that in our intention 
to benefit Labour we have not unintentionally made the 
position worse. 

And I would remind you that Trade Unions have, rightly, 
set no value upon Profit-Sharing schemes. They have never 
been interested in them at any time. They have never 
seen in Profit-Sharing schemes anything worth exchanging 
for the right to bargain for Labour at the highest market 
price that Labour can obtain ; and I say they are right in 
that, for through the influence of Trade Unions Labour has 
been able to make better terms and better arrangements 
financially, in the form of increased wages without risks of 
loss, than could have been made under any system of Profit- 
Sharing or Partnership. 

Now, I will tell you how this operates. Industries are 
started in this country, and in the early days of these in- 
dustries there is practically very little competition amongst 
the holders of these industries, and profits are inflated, with 
the result that a rush takes place of money into such industries, 
and a rush of capital means that more men are employed 
in them. The wages remain a fixed charge, and in consequence 
of the inrush of capital and the greatly increased output, 
the value of the product, represented by the price it will 



62 THE SXX-fiOUH DAY 

fetch on the market, has a serious fall ; but the result of that 
new industry has been to employ more capital, and every 
additional workman put on in that new industry has relieved 
the labour market, and enabled Trade Unions the better 
to bargain for an advance in wages for all labour in that in- 
dustry and out of it. When you turn to the cotton industry 
(I come from a cotton manufacturing county — Lancashire), 
in my younger days a cotton-spinner was called a " cotton- 
lord," and he was, relatively, getting a very much higher 
return on his capital than could possibly be obtained to-day. 
I know of cases in those days when a man could build a new 
mill out of the profits of the old one in three years, and so 
on ; but that has completely passed away with the organi- 
zation of the industry, and with its becoming more stable 
and more settled. Such a state of affairs as that could not 
exist long. It was sure to attract fresh capital, and it was 
sure to produce a cutting down of profits ; but the very con- 
ditions that operated adversely for the Management, re- 
ducing the profits, operated in the direction of raising the 
wages of the workmen. If you take the cotton mills of 
Oldham, the balance-sheets of which are public property, 
you will find this extraordinary result, that in the last thirty 
years the payment of Management — because most of these 
mills got the bulk of their capital in Preference Shares and 
Debentures — the payment of Management represented by the 
rate of dividends on Ordinary Shares has decreased by 50 
per cent., and wages to Labour, as shown by the Trade Union 
rate of wages, has during the same period increased by 40 
per cent. Now, that is without any Profit-Sharing at all. 
That is the ordinary economic working of supply and demand, 
what is called the competitive forces that go on in all our 
industries ; and therefore we have got to be extremely careful 
in approaching this subject, because I am convinced of this, 
that anything which tends to complicate the basis on which 
Labour is paid makes it more difficult for Labour to obtain 
the highest price for itself, and everything which tends to 
simplify the arrangement enables Labour to obtain the 
highest possible price ; and if we introduce a complication of 
any kind, we might, so far from producing any benefits to 
those we desire to benefit, produce exactly the opposite 
result. 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 63 

Now, when we come to examine Profit-Sharing schemes, 
I want to point out this ominous fact. They have been com- 
menced in the commercial world and have been in active 
operation for over seventy years, yet the Board of Trade 
Return issued on this very subject shows that the average 
life of Profit-Sharing schemes with firms is only five years ; 
that whilst there may be some that have existed for twenty 
years or longer, the average duration is only five years ; and 
the last return of all, issued in February of this year, shows 
that at the present moment only forty-nine firms in the United 
Kingdom, employing some 64,000 workpeople — only 64,000 
out of millions of workpeople represented by the Trade Unions 
— only forty-nine firms were dividing profits with their work- 
men. Now, that is a fact that you have got to bear in mind. 
And another point I want to mention (and it has been the 
cause of the break-up of many Profit-Sharing arrangements) 
is, that Profit-Sharing does not prevent strikes. I know 
it was hoped that under a Profit-Sharing arrangement strikes 
would cease, but how could it have that effect ? If a work- 
man hears that in an adjoining colliery, as has often been the 
case with a Profit-Sharing colliery, a rise in wages has taken 
place, while he in the colliery where he shares the profits 
gets no such advance in wages, surely he is bound to resent 
what must appear to him nothing other than some arrangement 
under which he is asked to take less wages than he is entitled 
to, and must resort to strikes, which he consequently does. 
It is absolutely certain that no one will accept a Profit-Sharing 
arrangement in exchange for some abatement from the highest 
rate of wages he is entitled to receive. Well, now, there is 
another advantage in having wages fixed by Trade Unions. 
It is that in competition amongst masters it is of great im- 
portance, in my opinion, that masters amongst each other 
should not have the opportunity of competing in the rate of 
wages ; that the wage fund should be fixed, and that any man 
giving a tender in competition with another tender should 
not have any advantage out of a lower wage fund. The 
only effect that could have would be gradually to bear down 
the wage fund. " A " takes a contract to-day because he 
can get labour for less than " B." " B," not content with 
that, makes a corresponding arrangement and takes something 
next time out of the wages fund. There would be no end to 



U THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

it. Therefore, there is a great advantage in the wages being 
fixed. Any Profit-Sharing arrangement, therefore, that was 
based upon what you might call pooling the profits, Labour 
getting an uncertain share, would be sure to be disastrous 
in every way. 

Well, now, I want to point out that sometimes employers 
are treated in the Press to a very great deal of what I may 
call " cheap morality." Hard employers are railed against, 
employers that are working on uncertain conditions are held 
up to public odium. Now, I say this without hesitation, and I 
think I can afford to say it because you know what I believe. 
There could be no worse friend to Labour than the benevolent, 
philanthropic employer who carries his business on in a loose, 
lax manner, showing " kindness " to his employees ; because, 
as certain as that man exists, because of his looseness and 
laxness, and because of his so-called kindness, benevolence, 
and lack of business principles, sooner or later he will be 
compelled to close. On the other hand, although it sounds 
hard, that man who adheres strictly to business principles, 
who pays, of course, the highest rate of wages, because to-day 
it is not possible to pay less, and carries on his business on 
so-called " hard " lines, will not be the worst friend of Labour 
at all. This man who is employing labour on strictly business 
principles is not the least respected by Labour in any way, and 
ought not to be. 

To take another point, the incapable employer does not 
make profits, the capable employer does make profits ; so 
therefore we find in different businesses not only the profits 
vary, but in the same business you have varying profits 
because of the varying capacity of the employer. Now, 
the incapable employer making small profits may not excite 
the envy, criticism, and remarks that are hurled at the man 
of more capacity who earns larger profits, but he is doing 
his workmen a great injury. Supposing he has ioo workmen 
and fails to make profits. He gradually ceases to be able 
to employ ioo ; he cannot keep up renewals of machinery 
and upkeep out of the profits, so in time he has to discharge 
50 of his men. He is now employing 50. It is true that the 
loss falls on him, but it equally falls on the 100. It is true 
it only appears to fall on 50 out of the 100, because only 50 
were discharged, but that 50 discharged have to the extent 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 65 

of 50 depressed the labour market, and lowered the demand 
for labour by competing with men in occupation for labour. 
On the other hand, the more capable employer, employing 
ioo, makes profits, and because he is making profits desires 
to increase his business. He doubles his plant, puts more 
money into the business, and employs 200 men, and is still 
making money. That man is not only benefiting himself 
and the 200 men he employs, but the whole body of workmen, 
by his taking 100 workmen off the market and finding them 
occupation, so benefiting the whole of them. 

Now, I do not want you to think that in any case labour 
can be paid out of capital. It is not, and we find this curious 
fact, which has to be explained by those who rail against 
the position of Capital, that wages are always highest in those 
countries where not only is capital most plentiful and where 
capital earns the highest rate of dividends, but wages are 
always lowest in those countries where there is the least 
capital employed, and where capital earns the lowest return. 
In England, wages are high and the return on capital is high. 
If you go to Spain, there is less capital employed than in 
England, and the return on capital is lower and the wages 
to labourers are lower. If you go across to India, you will 
find there is less money again available in industries, and there 
is less return on money in industries, and you find labour pay 
at the lowest ebb of all, a fact which you can prove for yourself. 
In all countries where capital is plentiful and receives the 
highest return, there wages are highest. Therefore, we come 
to see clearly that it is intelligence and wealth that raise 
profits and wages, and ignorance and poverty that lower 
profits and wages. Therefore there can be no antagonism 
between Capital and Labour, and if we want to raise the 
position of the workers we cannot do that by lessening the 
wealth of any other class. Now, there are laws in the business 
world just as rigid and just as inviolable as laws in the physical 
world, and therefore we come to this axiom, that the only 
way in which wages can be increased is to increase the efficiency 
of Labour, and therefore the quality and quantity of the 
product. Wages can only be paid out of the fund that is 
created by Labour, and therefore, if we adopted Profit-Sharing 
under the idea that we should get a short-cut that would 
clear us of all our troubles — if Profit-Sharing meant inducing 

6 



66 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

a number of men to lean on each other, and to lean on the 
man at the top, and to think that he by his magic wand 
called Profit-Sharing could distribute a share of profits every 
year to improve their position — this would be an enormous 
mistake : it could not last long. Therefore we find the 
average duration of life of Profit-Sharing schemes is only 
five years, and we find that those men who try to mix philan- 
thropy and benevolence with business find it a mixture 
that is no more possible than oil and water — that you cannot 
mix them. The business has to be conducted on sound 
business principles, just as mills and factories must be 
equipped with the most modern machinery. 

Yes, but then, when you have got all your business methods 
and all your modern machinery and modern science, there 
still does enter into the calculation the human factor ; and 
I say that the employer who merely guards machinery so 
as to prevent accidents in his factory that he would have 
to pay for, has entirely mistaken the true position. 
The true position is this, that if the hazardous nature of 
any occupation is reduced, if businesses that are unhealthy 
are made healthy, they become attractive to a greater body 
of workmen, a more intelligent class of workmen, and that 
industry carried on by a more intelligent class of workmen 
is much more likely to succeed than if carried on by a class 
that is less intelligent and less businesslike, so that the Com- 
pensation Act has another side to it than the payment under 
the Act. Well, now, I would say, referring to that illustration, 
that there is the human factor in every works, and for the 
employer to merely consider the driving of the hardest bargain 
with his labour, and to get his labour at the lowest price, 
and to endeavour to force out of his labour the maximum 
amount of work that he can, is not to proceed in a manner 
which will favour his own ends. He will not do it, he cannot 
do it ; and I say this to the workmen : that the workmen 
who think that by reducing the output — what is called in 
the North the " ca' canny " policy — they will increase 
wages to Labour, and do well to make a job for two men 
spin out for three, are equally mistaken, and that they will 
not improve Labour by that method. The only way these 
two. Management and Labour, can create a fund to increase 
profits — out of which wages and profits are paid, out of which 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 67 

it is possible to pay the highest rate of dividends and wages — 
is to increase the quality of the product and increase the 
quantity of the product ; that can only be done by becoming 
more efficient. It cannot be done by working a greater 
or less number of hours ; it can only be done by making men 
in every way more efficient. 

We find, then, that all the forces of production — Capital, 
Labour, and Management — must work together ; must work 
to one common end, must work on lines of enlightened self- 
interest, and not on the lines of narrow personal selfishness, if 
any good is to be done. Now, what feasible method have 
we of drawing those forces together ? Well, let us carry 
our minds back to examine the stages the industry of this 
country has passed through, and see whether we have any 
greater step to make to-day than our forefathers had at various 
periods. In the first period of all, we were savages, we were 
controlled by a chief, and if we met any other group of men 
who did not belong to our section or tribe, we promptly killed 
them if we could. And it was considered a businesslike arrange- 
ment, I have no doubt, in those days, for the very simple 
reason that if we did not succeed in killing them they would 
have killed us, and that was the whole basis of the state of 
savagery. No working together was possible. The most 
you could say was that the members of one tribe or little 
settlement would work together, but the next tribe or settle- 
ment would be their deadly enemies, and we have that, of 
course, existing in every uncivilized part of the world to this 
day. After the state of savagery we developed into a state 
of slavery ; that was the next step forward ; and there is no 
doubt that under slavery life was protected, which was one 
great gain, and consequently more effective work was done 
for the community under a state of slavery than was possible 
under a state of savagery. I have not the slightest doubt 
that slave owners of those days considered it was perfectly 
businesslike to drive their slaves to work with the lash and the 
whip, and they would have thought kindness and considera- 
tion perfectly unbusinesslike and impossible to carry on ; 
in fact, if in buying and selling their slaves they had con- 
sidered them any other than cattle, if they had hesitated 
for a moment to drag them to where they could get a good 
price, it would have been considered totally unbusinesslike 



68 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

and maudlin sentiment. In the present days of wages it 
is very nearly considered unbusinesslike and bordering on 
philanthropy to do anything more for workmen than is abso- 
lutely necessary, and strict business to get out of the work- 
men the largest amount of work by driving and by 
forcing methods rather than reasonable and proper methods. 
Well, I say this : we living to-day have not to make anything 
like so great a stride to take the workman from the wage- 
drawer — I use the word ■' drawer " because you cannot 
say under the wage system that it is always earned : a great 
section of men earn more than they draw, and the other 
section earn less than they draw — I say it is nothing like as 
big a jump from the position of wage-drawer to that of co- 
partner as there was from savagery to slavery and from 
slavery to wage payment. But, whilst it may be difficult 
to do so, and whilst, in addition, I may make a great many 
mistakes — for, as I said at the beginning, the margin of safety 
is extremely small — still, during the last twenty years I have 
tried first one method and then another working in that 
direction. I have always preferred to call my previous methods 
Prosperity-Sharing, and not Profit-Sharing, because I feel 
that Prosperity-Sharing best describes my ideals. I feel 
that when a business prospers it means that all the factors 
have entered into that success. It is perfectly certain that 
no one man could be responsible for all the success, and there- 
fore, if the business prospers, I like to take the illustration 
of the family. If a father prospers in life he moves into a 
better house, his children get a better education, get better 
clothes, more holidays in summer, and so on ; that is, with- 
out touching his profits at all. If that father said to his 
children, " I have made so much more this year, and will 
divide so much more with you," in my opinion the effect of 
that on the children would be that the next year, when the 
father had reverses in business and had losses, the children 
would begin to criticize him and say, " How is it that father 
is so much more a fool this year than last — why did he open 
that new office in London and lose his money? " On the 
other hand, if he does not say anything about his income, 
but gradually betters his family, he can tide over those bad 
years and carry on without them knowing anything about it. 
Therefore, I commenced building houses, gradually improving 



CO-PARTNEESHIP 69 

the conditions without touching profits, which I did not wish 
to do. I felt I might make a very serious mistake, because 
steps taken in that way could not be retraced. 

Now, another point comes up for our consideration when 
we go beyond Prosperity-Sharing, namely, the control of 
the business. Who is going to have control in a universal 
partnership ? Now, here we come, in my opinion, to what 
may form a way out of the difficulty. Just as taxation and 
representation must go together, so it seems to me loss- 
bearing and control must go together. The man or body 
of men who say they will bear all the losses have the right, 
because they say they are going to bear the losses, to say 
they will have the control, and it is for them to say to what 
extent they would like to have the assistance in the control 
of those associated with them ; and just as Labour cannot 
say that it will take any losses, so Labour, wanting to be in 
the position of Debenture Holder, has no right to say, " I 
will fix the policy of this business/' If Labour claims it is 
right for Labour to fix the policy, it is quite obvious that 
such policy might result in losses, and as Labour could not 
bear such losses, it is clear that Management, forced to adopt 
a policy fixed by Labour, would have to bear the losses alone, 
whereas if there were profits they would have to share them. 
It would be a perfectly unfair arrangement that would not 
be right. To merely give out profits as sort of doles, in my 
opinion, would be equally wrong. We must cultivate the 
self respect of everybody we work with. There is not a man 
but must be able to look you in the face and say he owes 
you nothing, that he does not want cheques if he does not earn 
them ; if he does not earn them as much as you have earned 
them, he does not want them. Therefore, we now come to 
consider on what possible basis we can work in Profit-Sharing. 

In my opinion, ordinary Profit-Sharing has been proved and 
found wanting. Prosperity- Sharing is very good, but does 
not go far enough. Now, then, we come to a possible adoption 
of Co-Partnership. Now, in this Co-Partnership arrangement 
it must be fixed, as I have said, that those who alone bear 
the losses must take the control. For those who do not bear 
losses, whilst their help in Management would be welcomed, 
control is not a right that they can demand until they share 
in the losses. Not until Labour can share in losses as well as 



70 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

in profits can Labour assume control. It is quite clear that 
in all well-organized industries some must work with their 
heads and others with their hands. If food, clothing, and 
homes are to be won for the whole body of workers, there 
must be a head prepared to control. I firmly believe that 
the more we recognize each other as brothers, within the proper 
limit9 of control, the more we shall raise ourselves as well 
as those who work with us. The whole body, employers 
and employees, will be raised together. Now, the employer 
has, by force of circumstances, learned his lesson already 
He has been taught that the best way for him to conduct 
his business is to improve the quality and, as far as possible, 
reduce the cost of his output, and that that is the only way in 
which he can extend his business and increase his profits. 
The workman has not learned that lesson because he has 
never had a chance of learning it ; he has never been able 
to have such a connection with the business as would bring 
that lesson home to him, and therefore it is by admission to 
Co-Partnership that he will learn it, and being in Co-Partner- 
ship he will see that it is only out of the fund created in the 
business itself that any improvement or advancement i9 to 
be made in the position of Labour. Certainly, Co-Partner- 
ship, if not viewed in this light, if it has not the effect of 
increasing products in value and quantity, cannot result in 
increasing the wages, and cannot lead to any betterment to 
the workers. Co-Partnership, therefore, must first ask — 
I am not giving these points in order of priority and not in 
order of importance, as they are practically all equal — how 
can we increase the output, improve the quality, reduce 
cost, lead to greater care of tools and machinery, greater 
economy of materials, and greatly reduce what is at present 
an inseparable burden on all industries, the cost of super- 
vision ? I know supervision is at present, and always will 
be to a certain extent, an absolute necessity, but I often think 
if we could be Co-Partners we should greatly reduce that cost, 
and we should have gone a long way in reducing the cost 
of production. Just as a slave worked better than a man- 
eating savage, and a wage-drawer worked better than a slave, 
I am convinced that a Co-Partner will do better work and more 
of it, with less personal fatigue, under better social conditions 
for himself, wife, and family, because his efficiency will 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 71 

be increased, than the wage-drawer ; and it is- only in that 
direction that we can uphold and maintain our system of 
Co-Partnership as better infinitely than any system of Profit- 
Sharing. 

Now, what I want to say to the employer is : " Here is 
our system. 1 It means well, and we are going to give it a 
fair trial. I believe it promises well because it gives to the 
employee freer scope for the exercise of his abilities, it raises 
him and makes him a better man. This it is bound to do. 
The tendency is that the worry and cares of Management 
ought to be relieved by it. Working with a body of Partners 
must be infinitely better than working with a body of wage- 
drawers, and assuredly I believe, as certain as we are here, 
the wage fund and profit fund will not be reduced if we all 
understand it and work together ; but even supposing the 
profit were reduced, but that those at the head of the firm, 
the Managers, have lost the worry and the anxious time, 
even then I say that it is worth more than any amount of 
money." 

To the employee I would say : " You are now offered 
an opportunity of sharing profits with Capital and Manage- 
ment, and have now the opportunity to show the kind of 
man you are ; join hands with your Co-Partners in a manly 
agreement to do your part in the Co-Partnership. You will 
continue to receive the highest rate of wages and will work 
the regulation hours, with all overtime rates that are pro- 
vided on the fullest scale that has ever been paid or arranged. 
Join hands with me to make the profits of this business sure 
and increasing. Let it not be a one-sided Co-Partnership.. 
There must be a fund created out of which you can benefit. 
There cannot be any one-sided arrangement that can be of 
benefit to either of us. Live up to our motto, ' Waste not, 
want not.' Fill your business hours with work for the business, 
increasing the quantity of the product, increasing the quality 
of the product. Take care of the machinery and tools, help 
me to weed out the chronic idlers and grumblers from this 
business. If we come on to years when dividends cannot 
be paid you will suffer, but you will not be the only sufferer. 
Your Co-Partners will suffer, and I will suffer with you, and 
you will have learned what business means and what the 
1 See Appendix, p. 135. 



72 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

risk9 of business are, a lesson that you ought to learn just 
as much as myself. Here is the Co-Partnership. I find you 
a ladder to raise yourself to the heights out of your present 
troubles and difficulties. I place it against the wall for you, 
but it is out of my power, or the power of any man, to push 
another man up the ladder— man and ladder both fall. I 
offer you the Co-Partnership : it is for you to make it a 
success." 



ii 

CO-PARTNERSHIP AND BUSINESS 
MANAGEMENT 

London, June 17, 1913. 

[Lord Leverhulme (then Sir William Lever, Bart.) addressed the 
Institute of Directors at its premises in Gracechurch Street. 
The Hon. Sir John A. Cockburn, K.C.M.G., M.D., F.I.D., 
who presided, spoke of the successful establishment of Co- 
partnership at Port Sunlight. He envied the members of 
the staff and employees whom he had met ; they seemed to 
have everything that wealth could bring — all the advantages 
of social life and the benefits of travel — and they seemed to 
be a most happy family. He thought the secret of success 
in business was that, where service was rendered willingly 
and with a certain amount of joy in the work, it was always 
much more efficient. Lord Leverhulme said :] 

It was with very great pleasure that I accepted your invitation 
to be here this afternoon, because of all subjects, the one of the 
greatest interest to myself, and the one to which I have pro- 
bably given the closest study outside my own business, is 
that of Co-Partnership. I believe that all manufacturers 
to-day are exposed to more criticism than probably any other 
class of the community. We are expected to adopt every 
method of every faddist in connection with our industry, 
while each one of us knows that if a manufacturer adopts 
any method that does not tend to produce more goods of a 
superior quality in less time, and at the same time pay labour 
higher wages, and give labour shorter hours, and simultane- 
ously give goods to the consumer at a reduced cost, that 
manufacturer is led away from the ordinary commercial 
channels into by-paths of dalliance that can lead nowhere, 
and he is bound to come to ruin. 

Well, the ordinary commercial relationship between each 

73 



74 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

of us, employer and employee, and one that has stood the test 
of time, is that of the payment of wages, and it is being found 
to-day that that bargain has a good deal of justice to recom- 
mend it. It is just this : a man says to the employer, " I 
will let you have my labour for a certain sum ; if you make 
money out of it, it shall be yours ; if you make a loss out of 
it, you shall bear it ; guarantee me my wages, and make 
your own arrangements after that." That man is practically 
a debenture holder in the industry, and it is a perfectly 
practical and sensible basis to work upon. But it is not 
found, as time goes on, to go quite far enough, because we 
want more than the mere desultory performance of duty ; 
we want the whole-hearted interest of the man, and the 
keener competition becomes, the more necessary it is that 
we should have, throughout our whole staff, a personal interest 
in the whole of the undertaking, which personal interest can 
never be supplied by a mere wage-drawer. 

Now we are in this difficulty. It is impossible to mix 
different things with each other. It is impossible to mix 
debenture holder and shareholder, for instance. There is 
a sphere for each, and you cannot mix those spheres in any 
way. You cannot let a man be a debenture holder and at 
the same time take a share in the final profits of the business. 
You cannot easily have a man a wage-drawer and also inter- 
ested in the final profits of the business. And we have got 
this problem to solve. Every manufacturer has ideals for 
himself, in which he sees that his mills and factories are of 
the very finest description, equipped with the latest machinery, 
and in which he adopts the most modern methods, And there 
we stop. As soon as we come to consider the question of 
extending further and more modern methods to the labour 
we employ, we are in this difficulty of mixing, or of trying 
to mix, things that differ from each other. It is said, you 
know, that it takes two to make a bargain ; and I believe 
it is equally true that only one gets it. 

Now, in former times the whole history of the world has 
been a history of conflict. Conflict has been the rule of life. 
It has been the question that has settled the stability of 
nations ; conquest by war, and one perpetual conflict. And we 
see the modern survival of this idea of conflict in competition. 
The very antipathy of the public to anything partaking of 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 75 

the nature of monopoly shows that they believe that war, or 
competition, is for the good of the public, and probably for 
the good of mankind. And we do know this — that com- 
petition does keep us alert, and does keep us strenuous in 
our business. It is more important, however, that we give 
good service to the public than that we waste our energies 
in competing strenuously with each other. Any method 
that we can adopt in our business that will improve our effi- 
ciency and the efficiency of those we employ, is a much more 
important matter for the public than that we should be 
engaged in keen competition with each other. And I say 
also that, however much the faddist may like to see a manu- 
facturer who is also called a philanthropist, it is even more 
important for the workman that his employer should be a 
strict business man than that he should be a philanthropist. 
Capital is all-powerful to-day, and I think that, carrying 
our minds back to the time of conflict, it behoves Capital 
to remember that any conflict that may come between 
Capital and Labour is much better settled by an adjustment 
of rights, and a recognition of the rights of each side, than 
by a continuance of conflict. The recognition of rights does 
not mean that the manufacturer can be a philanthropist, 
because he cannot ; but each day Labour is demanding, and 
rightly and properly demanding, a greater share in the profits 
of industry — and to-morrow, in all probability, the positions 
may be reversed, and as the demand for labour increases 
and money becomes more plentiful, Capital may become the 
suppliant for employment, and Labour may be all-powerful 
and able to dictate the terms on which it is to be employed. 
That is, of course, an exact reversal of the position which we 
have to-day. Supposing even that that came about, the 
employer could not even then be a philanthropist, and the 
hardest employer who could possibly be imagined, who 
succeeds in keeping his people in full work at full wages, 
whatever that rate of wages may be, would be better, even 
under those conditions, for the workman himself than a 
so-called philanthropist. 

Well, now, in Labour wars, of course, the weapon which 
has been used, and effectively used — and I think rightly used 
— has been that of strikes. But, like all methods of war — 
like all weapons of war — it is costly and extravagant, and I 



76 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

believe it is equally true in industrial warfare as in warfare 
between nations — and this has been proved by Mr. Norman 
Angell — that no practical profit has ever come out of war 
unless it has been a fight for liberty. And I believe that in 
this question of the adjustment of wages there is no question 
of liberty involved, and that all questions of this kind could 
be infinitely better settled by mutual forbearance and con- 
ciliation than by any question of strikes. In my opinion, 
all these strikes, and all this unrest in the Labour world, are 
a healthy sign. And it is still more healthy that no advantage 
at the present moment has resulted, or can result, from this 
warfare that will give either element a preponderance over 
the other. The tendency will be, as I have said, as money 
becomes more plentiful, for money to be the suppliant for 
employment, and for Labour to be able to dictate more closely 
its own terms. But even then, extravagant and costly pro- 
duction would ruin industries, would ruin the cause of Labour, 
and would bring Labour back to a situation of unemployment. 
For a number of years past we have seen various Acts of 
Parliament passed to regulate the employment of labour. 
Now, I am not one of those who think that this has come 
about merely because the workman has the vote ; I rather think 
it is because the community recognizes that the workman 
has certain rights, and because the regulation of labour in 
a proper manner has been recognized as being just and fair ; 
and the very fact that it has resulted in giving advantage 
to the employer as well as to the workman proves that it is 
founded on sound lines. We have to be regulated. I know 
there was an idea in the middle of the last century that each 
of us had liberties which we could exercise at our own sweet 
will. But it is found that organized society cannot live in 
that way, and that we have to recognize the rights of others 
as well as our own rights. This is no new idea, I know, but 
we are beginning to recognize more and more that in this 
matter of the employment of labour it is right that the State 
should make certain regulations, so that one manufacturer, 
who is inclined to adopt proper safeguards of machinery and 
proper regulations of labour, shall not be handicapped in 
competition with another manufacturer who would prefer 
to disregard such safeguards and regulations. We are all of 
us the better for regulation in this direction. 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 77 

But this again does not take us very far. It still leaves 
us very nearly where we were with regard to the wage question, 
and the situation is pretty much in this respect left as it was 
at the beginning of last century. Well, now, the question 
of capital comes in, and may I mention this, which I am 
sure is apparent to every one of us — that the shareholder 
in the large aggregations of capital that are known to-day, 
is no longer a partner ; he is merely an investor — a money- 
lender. Capital has become dependent on Management 
and Labour, and this result has produced a condition where, 
if you alienate the interest of Management and alienate the 
interest of Labour, so that the whole of the benefits resulting 
from the whole-hearted service of Management and Labour 
are merely to go to the financier, the money-lender, or the 
investor, then you have produced circumstances in a very 
large number of industries which did not exist a decade 
ago — where you have divorced Management and Labour 
from the fruits of the industry owned by these large aggrega- 
tions of capital. That is going on slowly and gradually. 
It may be possible in certain industries, but in other industries 
such a condition of affairs is entirely opposed to their 
success. Now the conflict that has resulted from this 
changed position is rather considerable. The condition is 
now one in which Management, as such, is on the side of, 
or is in the same position as, Labour ; and in interesting both 
Management and Labour in rendering efficient service, I 
claim that the best interests of shareholders, who want a solid 
investment with security, and the best interests of the con- 
sumers, who want articles of uniform good quality at the 
lowest possible cost of production, would alike be realized. 
It is not easy at any time to evolve a scheme that will realize 
the possibility of interesting Management (which is not a share- 
holder) and Labour (which is also not a shareholder) in the 
products that they, jointly with Capital, create. The result 
is that very often complicated positions occur, and systems 
are evolved which are more or less temporary. The average 
life of such schemes, as I say, is about five years. Now, there 
must be a reason for this, and I cannot help thinking that the 
reason is the one which I have already mentioned, namely, 
the attempt to mix things that differ. As I stated before, 
the employer who shares his profits with his workpeople is 



78 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

not entitled on that account to receive his workmen's labour 
for less than the current rate. Some of the Profit-Sharing 
schemes have fallen to the ground because, after sharing in 
the profits for a number of years, the workmen have struck 
against a reduction of wages when no profits were accruing, 
or have struck for an advance of wages when an advance has 
been given in other industries, with the result that the Manage- 
ment has said, " Well, of course, if you won't take bad times 
with good, if you are only going to take your share of the profits 
when these accrue, and leave us to bear all the losses, we will 
withdraw the Profit-Sharing arrangement altogether." Now, 
it seems to me that that is an unreasonable position to place 
Labour in. Labour must have its fixed rate of wages, which 
in turn must be the Trade Union rate of wages, or the current 
rate of wages in trades where there is no union. Labour must 
have that rate of wages assured to it, and if the employer, 
in prosperous years, shares profits with his workpeople, he 
has a right to expect that whilst he is not interfering with 
the rate of wages, he is, by adopting that system, increasing 
the personal interest of his staff in their work, and that the 
staff themselves will make the surplus profits which they 
themselves are going to share. And on that basis, and only 
on that basis, does it seem to me to be possible to introduce 
a system of sharing profits with employees. Because, if it is 
going to be a system merely of taking the profits made by the 
employer and dividing a share of those among the employees, 
then it is philanthropy, which is not required, and for which 
there is no place in business ; and in a very small number of 
years an employer adopting that course would inevitably find 
himself handicapped by competitors who, instead of dealing 
with surplus profits in that way, carried them to a reserve 
fund and left them to fructify in the business. And in that 
way the profit-sharing philanthropist would find himself 
suffering a very serious handicap. If the workman, on the 
other hand, felt that he was not assured of his full rate of 
wages, the same as he would receive in any other workshop, 
he would naturally feel aggrieved, because it is a matter of 
life and death to him, with his family to maintain, that he 
should have his full rate of wages, and he cannot do without 
that full rate of wages. 
Now I will tell you, if you will allow me, something of my 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 79 

own little personal experience. I have endeavoured to indicate 
to you the difficulties of the case, which are very real, and now 
I would like to tell you of the various means which I have 
adopted, during the last five-and-twenty years, to produce 
this personal interest of which I have been speaking, and of 
what has brought me to my present system. 

The first and obvious course for a man to take is to allow 
those associated with him in his business to acquire some of 
the ordinary capital. It has been done very largely in a great 
many industries. Well, I tried that, and I invariably found 
that as a result of that, the holding of these shares produced 
a state of mind which was nervous, to say the least of it. So 
that if a new development was contemplated — for instance, 
the opening of works in Australia or in some other part of 
the world — then the holders of a small number of the ordinary 
shares were inclined to consider that the position of these 
ordinary shares was going to be jeopardized, and that the 
opening of those works was going to be risky, more or less, 
and that the risk ought not to be taken. And in many cases 
the argument was used, " We are doing well, and why should 
not we be satisfied with going on as we are ? " W T ell, of 
course, the number of ordinary shares held in this way, as 
compared with those held by myself, was not . of sufficient 
moment to be powerful enough to alter the policy — if it had 
been, I think it would have been fatal to our progress — and 
the result that generally came about was that I had to buy 
back myself, at a premium, shares which I had either given 
for no payment at all or had issued at par. I never got 
them back at par in any single case ; I always had to buy 
them back at a premium. Invariably, as I say, there was 
a state of nervousness created in the minds of those who held 
these shares. They might be worth £40,000, £50,000, or £60,000 
if realized at a particular time, and when there was any question 
of a new departure, such as the establishment of a new under- 
taking, the holders of these shares felt that they did not know 
where they were going to be landed, or how their value was 
going to be affected. This is the natural attitude of the small 
shareholder, and I respect it. I do not think I have any right 
to say that he ought not to take that view. A man who finds 
that if he goes out of the business at a certain moment he will 
go out without the necessity of any worry as regards the future 



80 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

will naturally hesitate to go into a new branch of the enter- 
prise and face unknown risks of which he does not, and in 
the nature of things cannot, foresee the finality. Therefore, 
as I say, the only result I got from letting these ordinary 
shares go was that I had invariably to buy them back at a 
premium, and generally before five years had passed. So 
that, after having a strong desire to get rid of my ordinary 
shares to those who worked with me, I ultimately found myself, 
until two years ago, the holder of all the ordinary shares. I 
should mention that then I let my son have some of them, 
but he, of course, is on a somewhat different footing, and I 
suppose that in all human probability he will have the lot 
at some time or other. But leaving his shares out of the 
question, all the others came back to me in the way I have 
described. 

Now, I had to give that idea up. It was leading me 
nowhere. It was costing me a great many hundreds of thou- 
sands of pounds, so I had to give it up. Next I thought I 
would try my hand at the creation of some preference shares, 
the dividend on which would be restricted to 5 per cent. My 
idea was to allow these to be applied for, and when the appli- 
cants obtained them, they would receive the same rate of 
dividend as the ordinary shares, the difference being ex gratia. 
Now, I consulted our solicitor, and he pointed out to me that 
that scheme had already been tried and had failed. So I 
was saved from that particular pitfall. He said he knew 
several firms who had tried the scheme, and that the result 
had been that the employees had been able to borrow money, 
say, at 5 per cent, on the security of the shares themselves, 
and if they were paying say, 15 per cent., the borrower drew 
10 per cent, and the lender took the other 5 per cent. So that 
the employee could always get money on these shares, which 
he looked upon as a mere monetary transaction, quite 
apart from his own occupation. Therefore I never adopted 
that plan. 

Still I was not satisfied, because in a business such as ours, 
with over fifty branches scattered all over the world, you 
must have the personal interest of your staff. You cannot 
ignore it. It is a thing which you must get. And then I 
thought that perhaps by issuing what I call certificates — 
certificates representing no money at all, and which could 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 81 

not be negotiated— I might solve the problem. I thought 
I would pay on these certificates the same rate of dividend 
as on the ordinary shares, less, say, 5 per cent., which would 
represent interest on the money if money had been paid for 
them in the same way as in the ordinary course it would be 
paid for ordinary shares. So I started the system of issuing 
these certificates, such certificates receiving 5 per cent, less 
than the ordinary shares. As you know, there are many 
profit-earning schemes (I do not need to mention names) 
where the endeavour is made to guarantee the workman 
4 J, or 4, or 5 per cent, on whatever money he puts in, and 
then, after that, sharing the profits with him. Well, I saved 
all that guarantee by dispensing with his putting in any 
money at all, and merely calling these things certificates, 
representing, as I say, no money at all, though to the holder 
they represent dividends of the same value as the ordinary 
shares receive, minus 5 per cent. I created this scheme, 
and finally, after a great many years' work, got it into shape, 
I think, some four years ago. We created at that time £500,000 
nominal value of these certificates, and this year we propose 
to create a further £500,000, raising the amount of these 
certificates to £1,000,000 nominal value. Then I began with 
the rank and file. I gave these certificates to all what I may 
call rank-and-file workers, to the extent of 10 per cent, of their 
wages. If any report came in with regard to any man having 
committed an act of insubordination, any neglect of duty, 
or any of the minor offences, he forfeited any allotment he 
would otherwise have received during that year. If, on the 
other hand, an excellent report came in concerning any man, 
he received more than 10 per cent. ; and if any man rendered 
the Company exceptional service, he received still more, per- 
haps many times 10 per cent. So that there was always 
elasticity, and the whole scheme was founded perfectly legally 
by the shareholders, the only shareholder who was required 
to vote being the ordinary shareholder. The scheme is upon 
the basis that the majority of the ordinary shareholders shall 
have the right to decide how many of these certificates are 
to be issued. So that the matter is entirely in the hands of 
the majority of the ordinary shareholders for the time being. 
Well, we worked on this footing and we created a savings 
bank, and the dividends, as they accrued, were credited to 

7 



82 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

each man's account. If he chose, he could go to the savings 
bank the same day that his account was credited and draw 
the money then and there — the whole of it, if he pleased. If 
he left the money in the bank for three months, he received 
interest on it at the rate of, say, 3 per cent. ; if he left it six 
months, he received interest at the rate of, say, 4 per cent. ; 
and if he left it twelve months, he received interest at the rate 
of, say, 5 per cent. He could draw the money out at any time, 
and the interest was made up in accordance with the time 
the money had been deposited in the bank. So that if he 
left his money in the savings bank twelve months or longer, 
he got, say, 5 per cent. ; if less than twelve months and over 
six months, say, 4 per cent. ; between three months and six 
months, say, 3 per cent. ; and if drawn out under three months 
there would be no interest. 

Well, I found that a great many of the workmen drew their 
money out to buy our Preference shares. That was reported 
to me, and I found that they had to buy our Preference shares 
at a premium. Then I saw what seemed to me a solution 
of one of the schemes which I had discussed with our solicitor, 
namely, the creation of 5 per cent. Preferred Ordinary shares, 
the acquisition of which should not entail or permit of the 
men borrowing any money at all ; and I created these 5 per 
cent. Preferred Ordinary shares, which rank immediately 
before the ordinary shares, and after all other classes of shares. 
If the man chooses to retain these shares, he does so. If he 
wishes to realize on them, he can walk into the savings bank 
at any time, and there is a market for them at par. So that 
although he draws what he may be entitled to in the shape 
of shares, he can change them into money just as readily as 
he could obtain the money originally when it was credited 
in his bank-book ; while if he prefers to hold the shares, he 
receives the same dividends as are paid on the ordinary shares. 
Now, this has overcome the difficulty of the man applying 
for shares out of all proportion to his available money. Practi- 
cally the money for these shares is found out of the dividends 
he receives on his certificates, and the certificates, in turn, 
represent no cash value at all. So that now! have a medium 
through which the man can come into the ordinary share- 
holder class by saving all his dividends on his certificates. I 
have only had this in operation for twelve months, and it 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 83 

is too early yet to say any more than that I have started it. 
But you will see that my effort has been to interest a large 
number of people, by a convenient method, in the profits 
of the business, and to do it in such a way that a man could 
have no fear about his capital. I have thus overcome that 
original fear that a man had, that if we took over some fresh 
undertaking his ordinary dividends would be at stake, because 
these depend on the certificates, which certificates he has 
not paid for, and which certificates, not having paid for, he 
is very anxious should receive as high a rate of dividend as 
possible, because this is their only value to him, and he not 
having put any money in them, and the certificates repre- 
senting, as they do, a perfectly unsaleable commodity, he 
cannot sell them at a premium at all. He therefore takes a 
different view with regard to the progress and development 
of the Company ; he becomes anxious that the business 
should progress and develop, because it is only by such pro- 
gress and development that he i9 able to obtain dividends 
on his certificates, which dividends, in their turn, he can 
invest, if he likes, in Preferred Ordinary shares during his 
employment in the business, and thereby receive, during 
his active employment in the business, the same dividends 
as are paid on the ordinary shares. If a man dies, or if he 
retires from the business, the shares then revert to merely 
5 per cent. Preferred Ordinary shares, which is the only 
right conferred on them by the Articles of Association. The 
additional rights are equally binding so long as the holder 
remains with our firm — we have altered the Articles of Associa- 
tion accordingly — but what we have undertaken is merely 
to pay him the same rate of dividend as is received by the 
ordinary shares during the time he is actively engaged in the 
business. And in this way we hope that we have solved the 
problem of interesting our staff in the profits of the business 
and in the losses of the business. 

But I want to impress upon every one present that no Profit- 
Sharing scheme will be of any use if the man is not made to 
feel that he is interested in the losses just as much as in the 
profits of the business. A Profit-Sharing scheme which merely 
mentions profits, and takes no account of possible losses, 
tells only half the commercial tale. We all of us here know 
— it is unnecessary to mention it in such a gathering as this 



84 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

— that any business may have profits, and it may have losses 
and every one of us who has put his money, time, and energy 
into any business must necessarily be prepared to face either. 
And it is the fact that we realize that there may be losses 
which makes us, in all probability, so alert in guarding our 
interests, and safeguarding them, and endeavouring to ensure, 
by the stability of the business, that the capital embarked in 
it shall be perfectly safe. 

Now, therefore, by means of these certificates, a man may 
have accumulated, as several in fact have, some thousands 
of pounds. If there is no dividend for the ordinary share- 
holder, or if there is only 5 per cent, for the ordinary share- 
holder, he knows that there is nothing for him, and he knows, 
when he goes upstairs and looks into the drawer where he keeps 
his certificates, that it is only during his lifetime, and during 
the lifetime of the profit-earning capacity of the business, 
that they are worth any more than the paper they are printed 
on ; and he knows that directly the business ceases to be pro- 
fitable, the value of these certificates will have disappeared, 
since they are only entitled to receive dividends when such 
dividends have been earned. Now, I have endeavoured in 
this way to give him an interest without mixing things which 
differ. I have recognized the fact that whether the man con- 
cerned be the highest manager I have got, or whether he be 
the youngest worker in the factory or office, his wages must 
be proportionate to his services ; that those wages must be 
at the fullest rate which he could get in any other establish- 
ment for those services ; and that anything done by him beyond 
that must be done in the spirit of Co-Partnership, in which 
spirit he himself, with me and with all the others engaged 
in the business, endeavours to earn the profits which are to 
be shared by all of us ; and if we cannot enter into the 
spirit of Co-Partnership, if we feel that these profits will either 
jump from the ground or fall from the heavens without any 
exertion of ours, we know perfectly well we are all on one 
platform — we are all in the same boat, if I may use the expres- 
sion — and that none of us will receive any dividends. I have 
had to link together similar conditions to what every investor 
feels, and every capitalist feels, with regard to his investments 
— I have had to endeavour to link those conditions together 
in giving these certificates to our workpeople ; and I want 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 85 

to tell you that as far as I know, the workman does realize 
this. But there are critics of the scheme, opponents of the 
scheme, who have the idea that the profits of a business are 
made, in some way or other, by the workmen, and by the 
workmen alone. I have had to meet that attitude, and if 
I may digress for a few moments I will tell you how I met it. 
The people who take that view have urged as a criticism of 
my scheme that the workmen themselves have to make all 
the profits of which they only take a share. On the other 
hand, they don't want philanthropy — in which I quite agree. 
I would not do anything with regard to our workmen that 
savoured of philanthropy in the slightest degree. But if 
profits are to be made, I am not going to make surplus profits 
for our staff to divide amongst themselves, and equally, I am 
not going to ask them to make surplus profits for me. I say, 
let us each in our own different positions jointly make the 
profits, and after they have received their wages, and after 
I have received 5 per cent. — which is the equivalent — then 
for any services beyond that, if there is any surplus, let us share 
it in a perfectly reasonable way. 

Now I will make a digression, as I said, and try and tell 
you how I have met these criticisms of those who have attacked 
me, namely, Socialists, some of whom were my own workmen. 
I thought the best way would be to give them a paper, so I 
gave a paper at Port Sunlight, which I called Day-Work or 
Piece-Work — Which ? l Well, it attracted a great audience, 
because some of the men thought there was going to be a 
system of piece-work all through the works. But I have 
always looked upon day-work as representing Socialism and 
upon piece-work as representing Individualism, and I have 
never seen any other interpretation of the two things. Now, 
this paper of mine created some little commotion, and my 
audience did not feel quite ready to criticize it on the same 
evening that it was presented to them. So I said, " All 
right ; let us meet again and discuss this paper." Well, 
first one man got up and said he did not see but what the work- 
men made all the profits ; and another man made the same 
claim, and said that if there was to be any Profit-Sharing 
scheme which pretended to give the workman what he earned, 
he ought to have it all. When I came to reply, I said, " I 

* See p. 309. 



86 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

suppose I am talking to a number of sensible men, but according 
to what you have said just now, you seem to me very foolish 
indeed. Because you are saying that you make the profits 
of this business. Now, you certainly know a great many 
soap businesses which are not making any profits at all. Why 
not go, as a body, to these men who are making no profits 
on their soap, and say, ' Look here ; we work for that scallywag 
Lever ; he pays us the full rate of wages, it is true, and he 
gives us some share of the profits ; but he does not give us 
enough. How much will you give us ? ' " And I told them, 
" If you go in that way to these other people in the soap trade 
who are not making dividends, the very first thing they will 
say to you will be, ' What do you want ? ' Because whatever 
they get out of you will be to the good, inasmuch as they are 
making nothing now, and however little, or however much, 
you let them have will be to the good. You may tell them 
you want it all. Well, perhaps they will not listen to that. 
Well, then you can say, ' We want nine-tenths, and you can 
have one-tenth ■ ; and, seeing that they are getting nothing 
now, they will no doubt take it. And then you can all leave 
me, giving me the usual week's notice, and go to the other man 
in the same trade, and put the case to him : ' This scallywag 
Lever only gives us a share ; you give us a bigger one/ Now 
go and try it ! " Well, of course they were looking at each 
other, and had no answer. They had never seen it in that 
light before. I am perfectly certain these people are sincere 
and I am perfectly certain their leaders are sincere. I have 
never seen any reason to doubt their sincerity, and I have 
come into very close and frequent personal contact with 
them. But they have been so fed up on the idea that when 
a man has done something with his hands he has produced 
something that is of value, that they cannot see the other 
side of the question. We, who have to sell that article, know 
that although it may have been of value 3'esterday, and may 
•be of value to-day, yet next week, or at any particular moment, 
the market conditions may be different, and it may not have 
any value at all ; in fact, there may be a loss on its very pro- 
duction. Now, the men I refer to cannot realize that. You 
know the tale of the Socialist who came into a village and 
began to talk about the land question. He said the land 
ought to be .divided up, and nobody ought to pay for it . His 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 87 

views were very popular among the villagers, and they all 
adjourned to the village " pub " to talk the matter over ; 
and they began dividing up the land of the village among 
themselves. One man said he would have this field, another 
that. And one man said he would have a certain field of the 
squire's, " because it was best for growin' 'taties in." When 
they had divided it all up, they had time to notice a quiet 
old codger who had been sitting in a corner all the time, 
smoking, and taking no part in the talk. So one of the other 
men, the one who had chosen the potato field, said to him, 
" Tom, why don't you speak up, lad ? Didn't tha' goa to t' 
lecture ? " " Ay." " An' dostna believe in't ? " " Oh yes, 
A' b'lieve in't." " Then why dost tha' not speak oop for 
thy share ? " " Oh," said the old fellow, " A'm not goin' 
t' work ma Socialism that road." " How then ? " " Dick," 
said he, " didstna say tha'd ha' that field o' t' squire's 'cos 
it. growed t' best 'taties ? " " Ah." " And didn't tha say 
tha'd pay t' squire nowt fur it ? " " Ah." " Weel, I'll 
come and gather t' 'taties and pay thee nowt for 'em." 

There is a necessity upon each of us, in my opinion, to 
recognize the changes of the times, the changes in the aspira- 
tions of those who work for us. It is not only a question 
to-day, believe me, gentlemen, of the increased cost of living, 
although that is great, but it is the cost of higher living. 
The workman wants to live better, and in order to live better 
he wants to live in a better house, he wants his wife and 
children to be better fed and clothed. And these are things 
that he ought to have. So that there are two factors in 
operation. The same living that a man was content with 
ten years ago is dearer to-day. But he is not content with 
having the same living as he had ten years ago ; he wants 
better living, and rightly wants better living. And the 
increased cost of the same living, coupled with the desire for 
better living, is producing an unrest which in my view is the 
most healthy sign we have got. Now, it is a question whether 
we can, in ordinary competition, go beyond a certain amount 
with safety. In a business in which there are debentures, 
we are all agreed that you can have debentures with perfect 
safety up to a certain point. Beyond that point you must 
have ordinary shareholders who have taken the risks of the 
business. And is it not so in regard to labour — that we can 



88 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

advance wages up to a certain point in competition with the 
whole world — advance them to a point a little higher than the 
whole world ? Because I believe that we have the best 
available raw material of labour in this country. I do not 
believe that there is any labour material anywhere in the 
world superior to what we have in England, Scotland, Ireland, 
and Wales — in the United Kingdom. But if we are to make 
the enormous strides such as are demanded to-day, in my 
opinion it can only be done by increasing the interest of the 
workman in the article he is producing, and so making him 
a more efficient instrument of production by a personal 
element being introduced — that personal element which is 
the great stimulus behind each of us in this room to-day. 
We have got to share that stimulus with our workpeople, 
and if we do this, I believe the profits to be divided will be 
greater, and that everybody's share, including the workman's, 
will be greater. And side by side with the sharing of these 
greater profits, these increasing profits, there will go on at 
the same time a reduction of anxiety to us as managers. The 
anxiety of Management is greater with a number of wage- 
drawers than it is with partners. Many of us in business 
are working with partners, whom we have selected with care. 
Sometimes we may have been unfortunate, but you will 
recognize with me, I am sure, that ninety-nine times out of 
every hundred the partners work together in harmony for the 
good of the business in an entirely different way from what 
they would if they were wage-drawers merely. We want 
to produce that state of affairs right throughout our industries 
in order to get the greatest efficiency in our workmen, by giving 
them a personal interest in the article which they are pro- 
ducing. But in doing this — here I want to sound one warning 
note — there is to be no delegation of supreme authority from 
the Management ; and in my opinion all attempts that would 
mean the introduction of working men upon Boards of Directors, 
unless coupled with giving them a training in the higher 
branches of work, will be futile. It is utterly impossible to 
take an ordinary rank-and-file worker and make a Director 
out of him. It is not reasonable to expect to' be able to do so. 
He has to be trained, as all of us have had to be trained, for 
the position ; and to expect that a man can be selected out 
of the works by his mates to sit straightway on a Board of 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 89 

Directors is, in my opinion, an utterly futile expectation. 
It may be that one man can sit with six or seven other men, 
and, not having the supreme power of voting, may be of 
assistance to the Board of Directors (who have the supreme 
management) from time to time. But the supreme manage- 
ment must always be in the hands of trained men — men trained 
for their posts ; and the training which I am suggesting 
should go right through the staff is a training by means of 
which we can gradually develop their powers, through com- 
mittees, to qualify them ultimately for a seat on the Board 
of Directors. 

Now, having said this, I want to tell you that all our 
Directors have graduated as Directors through the works, 
the office, or the salesmen's department ; but in addition to 
this I have always taken such a man through the committees 
I have mentioned before finally making him a Director. As 
I have already said, I consider that the idea of a workman 
being appointed by his fellow-workmen to sit on a Board 
of Directors is futile. I do not think I need labour the idea, 
in such a company as the present, that real Co- Partnership 
means not only sharing in the profits, but also sharing in 
certain duties which a mere workman could not possibly 
properly understand. I might just as well say that I would 
go over to the pan side, where I should no doubt only succeed 
in making much worse soap than would be made by some of 
my lowest-waged workmen. On the other hand, a workman 
might come to the Board of Directors and might conceivably 
make more mistakes than even I do. But because I say 
that, it does not mean that we cannot work towards wider 
and wider improvements in our service, with the goal always 
before us that the profits to be divided will be divided equally 
in proportion to the amount of interest we take in the business 
and in proportion to the services we are capable of rendering. 



Ill 

RIGHT CONSTITUTION OF 
CO-PARTNERSHIP 

[Extract from " Industrial Evolution and Co-Partnership," 
Cambridge, August 6, 1914.] 

There is one great principle governing the world, which 
is that of self-interest. We find nowhere this principle more 
strongly developed nor finding more general acceptance than 
in business. It is the basis of the axiom, '* To buy in the 
cheapest market and sell in the dearest.". It shows itself 
in competition, sometimes healthy, sometimes unhealthy ; 
but there" are two kinds of self-interest, one the narrow, selfish 
self-interest, which is so short-sighted as to be blindly selfish 
to the exclusion of all other considerations ; and there is that 
broad, intelligent, enlightened self-interest, which says that 
it can only find its own best interests of self in regarding 
the welfare and interests of others. By the practice of this 
spirit of enlightened self-interest in the struggle for supremacy, 
and the practice of emulation and competition, mankind is 
made more and more intelligent, and is better able to obtain 
an advanced position. When the spirit of enlightened self- 
interest ceases to exist, mankind must of necessity fade out 
of existence also. This is just as certain as it is true that 
the practice of the narrow, blind, selfish self-interest can 
only result in the demoralization of society, and in constant 
struggle and warfare and in the decline of civilization. 

The truest and best form of enlightened self-interest is 
when we pay the highest regard to those associated with us 
in business, and whose improved efficiency we must seek to 
obtain by binding them and making them, equally with 
ourselves, interested in, and dependent upon, the success of 
the business. If Capital desires Management and Labour to 

90 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 91 

be efficient, then Capital must be fair in its division of profits 
with Management and Labour. If Capital wishes Manage- 
ment and Labour to make profits, then Capital must share 
profits with Management and Labour. If Capital thinks of 
nothing but its own narrowest and most selfish self-interest, 
without a single thought for Management and Labour, then 
Capital will never succeed in getting the highest possible 
amount of efficiency from Management and Labour. In 
fact, if Capital is justified in taking the most narrow and 
selfish view, then equally Management and Labour must be 
considered as entitled to consider how to obtain the highest 
possible salaries and wages for the least equivalent in skill, 
efficiency, and labour. And, equally, if Management and 
Labour consider nothing but their own narrowest and most 
selfish self-interest, if their thought is solely how to render 
the smallest possible amount of work — inefficient and, there- 
fore, profitless — in the shortest possible number of hours 
and for the highest possible salary or wages, then Manage- 
ment and Labour will of necessity retrograde and suffer ; 
but if Management and Labour adopt a system of enlightened 
self-interest, and Capital does the same, and each recognize 
the principle "that by looking after the interests of all they 
are taking the surest way of achieving their own individual 
self-interest, then the undertaking must be healthier, profits 
are bound to be greater, the resulting happiness will be 
more complete, and the prosperity and advancement of 
civilization the world over will be assured. 

It is claimed for Co-Partnership that by adopting Co- 
partnership a recognition is made of this great fact, that 
justice demands for each of us equal rights in the products 
of our labour. This is the very basis of Co-Partnership, 
and it is claimed for it that it stimulates efficiency and pro- 
duces economy and avoidance of waste, and it is only by 
so doing that Co-Partnership can increase well-being and 
prosperity and justify its adoption. 

Before we proceed further, it would probably be advan- 
tageous to give a definition of what is meant by Profit- 
Sharing and Co-Partnership. There are so many systems of 
Profit-Sharing, some amounting to little other than gratuities 
or Christmas-boxes, that this definition becomes all the 
.more important and necessary. In the Board of Trade 



92 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Report dealing with Profit-Sharing and Co-Partnership, 
Profit-Sharing was defined as "An agreement between an 
employer and his workpeople that the latter shall receive in 
addition to their ordinary wages a share fixed beforehand in 
the profits of the undertaking/' Under this definition all 
bonus schemes are excluded. The Board of Trade Report 
stated that there must be a previous agreement, that the share 
of the profits must be fixed beforehand, and Co-Partnership 
was defined as an extension of Profit-Sharing whereby the 
employee gained, in some degree, the rights and responsibili- 
ties of the shareholder. 

To enable us to judge the anticipated effects of the adoption 
of Co-Partnership, it is not unreasonable that we draw a 
parallel from what has been the effect of improving the con- 
dition of the workers in those industries that have been able 
to achieve this. It is a well-known fact that every reduction 
in the hazardous nature of an occupation has resulted in a 
wider selection and better workmen being available in that 
occupation. Businesses that were dangerous, and hazardous, 
and that have been made safe and free from risk, have become 
attractive to a greater body of workmen, and, at the same time, 
attractive to a more intelligent class of workrAn. There is 
the human element — the man behind the process and operation 
— to be considered in every undertaking. The only way in 
which to maintain an increased success in any industry is to 
maintain an increased efficiency, and thus by increased effi- 
ciency to increase the quantity and quality of the output, 
and so augment the fund out of which the wages and profits 
have to come. 

I venture to state that our modern industrial system in 
this great United Kingdom stands self-condemned, when 
the income tax returns show that it rests on a basis whereby 
one-ninth of the population enjoy one-half the total income, 
and more than nine-tenths of the accumulated wealth, whilst 
the remaining eight-ninths of the population have only one- 
half of the total income, and possess less than one-tenth of 
the accumulated wealth. It is true that the one-ninth have 
full legal claim to half the total income, and the nine-tenths 
of the total wealth. Not one word can be raised against 
the legal right upon which this rests, but notwithstanding 
these circumstances let us ask ourselves, Is this great disprq-- 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 93 

portion expedient and in the interests of the community 
as a whole, and the nation and Empire of which we all profess 
to be so proud ? 

But hidden and buried amongst the above mass of figures 
and income tax returns are also the unrecorded losses and 
failures, the despair and madness of many a so-called capitalist 
who has seen the ruin of his industry, sometimes from his own 
errors and mistakes, but, it is equally true, often from changed 
economic conditions which render his industry obsolete, and 
have swept away his capital and profits ; so that before we 
join in the general outcry of rights of Labour to share in the 
profits we must consider the proposition of Loss-Sharing as 
well as Profit-Sharing. Whole volumes have been written, 
and eloquent speeches have been delivered, on the subject 
of the rights of Labour to share in the profits. Men wax 
eloquent on these rights, but not one single line has been 
written, so far as I have been able to discover, to point out 
that if Management and Labour would share in the profits, 
Management and Labour must equally share in the losses. 
It has not even been claimed that Labour should share in the 
losses in those quite numerous undertakings where the ruin 
of the undertaking has been the direct result of the action 
of Labour. Therefore, there is one essential element of 
expediency and justice, when we are considering the applica- 
tion of Profit-Sharing to modern industrial conditions, and 
that is, that Loss-Sharing must of necessity go with Profit- 
Sharing, and cannot possibly be detached from it. 

This Loss-Sharing must be so arranged that the employee 
is not under the necessity of sacrificing the security of his 
position with regard to salary or wages. Therefore, Profit- 
Sharing must be in addition to, and not in substitution of, 
the salary and wages system. Profit-Sharing must mean 
the giving to the employee the opportunity each year by 
increased efficiency of acquiring an enlarging personal share 
in the profits of the business. Therefore, Profit - Sharing 
and Co-Partnership must result in increasing the volume 
of profits. Salary and wages must first be paid under the old 
system to Management and Labour, and a reasonable rate 
of interest, say 5 or 6 per cent., must be paid to Capital as 
the equivalent of the salary and wages of Management and 
Labour. The employee is at present placed in a position 



94 THE SIX-HOUK DAY 

of personal indifference, so far as his own financial responsi- 
bility is concerned, in the success or failure of the business. 
The employee sharing in the profits of the business, in addi- 
tion to receiving salary or wages, would ever have in his mind 
that the failure of the business would sweep away his annually 
increasing share in the profits of the undertaking, which share, 
equally as is the case with the Capitalist, has taken him a 
lifetime of unremitting application and patient effort to 
acquire. Therefore, Co-Partnership, rightly constituted, must 
of necessity bring the employee into close contact with Capital 
in Loss-Sharing as well as in Profit-Sharing, which would lift 
both Management and Labour into the stimulating, developing, 
and eleyating heights of profit-earner and profit-sharer in 
addition to that of the salary or wage-drawer. 



IV 
ESSENTIALS OF CO-PARTNERSHIP 

[Extract from address on " National Possibilities." See Section 
IV., " The Six -hour Day," pp. 50-55.] 

Do not let us think when we are considering Co-Partnership 
that we can treat it other than on the strictest business 
lines. I have just jotted down some nine headings tnat 
always appear to me to be essential to the success of any 
Co-Partnership scheme. 

(1) Co-Partnership must not degenerate into charity or 

philanthropy. It would be an insult to the workers 
if it did. 

(2) The object must be to increase efficiency, resulting 

in increased prosperity for all — not for the man 
on the top only, but for all. 

(3) It must maintain the supremacy of Management. 

Just as in the Army we must have corporals and 
sergeants and so on up to generals, so in industrial 
organization there must be various stages of 
management arrangement to ensure efncienc}', 
and these must be maintained. 

(4) Co-Partnership must not result in the weakening of 

Management, but, on the other hand, Labour must 
be free to work out its own ideals — free from the 
tyrannies of victimization if it expresses its views. 

(5) There must be a greater stability in these arrangements 

than a mere cash bonus. 

(6) The benefits of Co-Partnership must extend to the 

wives and children. I attach the utmost impor- 
tance to that. A man must know that his share 
in Co-Partnership, at his death, will go to his widow 
during her widowhood. 
95 



96 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

(7) It must elevate Management and Labour equally in 

the social scale. 

(8) It must not be antagonistic to the legitimate rights 

of the workers nor of the managers, and 

(9) The control must rest with those who find the capital. 

When we have Co-Partnership founded on these lines 
there will still have to continue the underlying wages system, 
and the wages system must be maintained on the highest 
scale practicable in the particular industry. In other words, 
those firms who adopt Co-Partnership must lead the way 
in advances of wages as well as in the benefits of Co-Partner- 
ship. I was pleased to note in the recent Board of Trade 
Returns on Co-Partnership that it is there stated that the 
firms which have adopted this system were firms which had 
given the greatest betterment conditions and the highest 
wages — that is essential. If it were not essential there 
would be no benefit in Co-Partnership ; it would be the mere 
attachment of workmen to works for an elusive advantage. 
The conditions must not only be better, but the wage itself 
must be slightly higher than that paid in other establishments. 
It cannot be greatly higher, because the cost of production 
is a factor that has to be taken into account. 



CO-PARTNERSHIP AND EFFICIENCY 

Birmingham, November 8, 1912. 

[A meeting was convened by the Consultative Council of the 
Labour Co-Partnership Association to hear an address by 
Sir William H. Lever, Bart. — as he then was — in the Mason 
College of Birmingham University. The Pro Vice-Chancellor 
(Mr. Alderman F. C. Clayton, J. P.) presided. The address is 
here subjoined :] 

The question that we have to discuss to-night is " Co- 
Partnership and Efficiency/' with a great accent on the word 
" Efficiency." In approaching the subject, What is the cause 
of Labour Unrest ? there is a strong desire on the part of 
every one to try to arrive at a basis which will be something 
like finality. If there ever is, or ever has been, an age that 
was or is worth living in, it is this present one. There is no 
age where Progress has planted so strongly and firmly a deter- 
mination to advance to higher ideals, and there is no country 
in the whole world where the conditions are so favourable 
to attain the highest possible well-being of the mass of the 
country as Great Britain. 

The nineteenth century saw the triumphant entry of 
steam, electricity, machinery, transportation with economy 
and efficiency in productive enterprise, and the creation of 
enormous wealth. More w r ealth was produced in the nine- 
teenth century, in consequence of the introduction of the above 
forces, than in all the centuries that have preceded it by man's 
unaided handiwork alone. Manufactures and shipping were 
almost in the same condition in the eighteenth century as 
they were in the time of the Romans, and if Napoleon the 
Great had attempted to invade this country, he would have 
done so practically under the same conditions as Julius Caesar, 
both being dependent on wind and tide. 

8 



98 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

If the nineteenth century was responsible for the 
triumphant introduction of new methods for the creation of 
wealth, the twentieth century must see the triumph of the 
introduction of new methods or the more equal distribution of 
wealth. But in realizing, or attempting to realize, the better 
distribution of wealth, we must not fall behind in our power 
or efficiency to produce wealth. Therefore, modern develop- 
ments must progress along the well-defined lines of efficiency. 

Now, in the production of wealth and the more equal dis- 
tribution of it, I do claim that, however great the progress 
already made has been, we have now arrived at a stage in the 
development of social well-being when, owing to the changed 
conditions of modern industrial activity — men and women 
being employed in large masses in industrial concerns, result- 
ing in the obliteration of the individual and the loss of 
individual self-interest in industrial activity — we may fairly 
inquire what has been the foundation of our progress. 
Now, I claim that this has been the persistent, consistent, 
and uninterrupted effort of every right-thinking man to better 
his condition. This has laid the basis of all the progress we 
have made. This principle is as unvarying as the law of 
gravitation, and it is from the operation of this universal law 
of self-interest of the individual that all progress has sprung 
and is maintained. It is like the great principle of life, which 
is ever operating to maintain healthy development ; and if 
Co-Partnership does not improve the conditions under which 
we are living, it will not appeal to us as other than a modern 
craze which will have its day and die out. 

We have to consider what can be done by a change in our 
relationship with each other in productive enterprises. No 
system can supply the place of individual effort, yet in modern 
productive enterprise, collective action, as in a sound army, 
is the greatest force. We have to consider whether the con- 
nection between each of us shall be one* of wages alone, or 
wages plus shares in the profits of the products of our col- 
lective labour. The wages system was a great advance on all 
other previous systems. The first system was slavery, and 
that was succeeded by serfdom, and then by the wages system, 
the last-named having developed the principle of self-interest, 
which is one of the greatest forces behind it. By Co- 
Partnership, we recognize the great fact that the Co- 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 99 

Partnership system is founded on justice and on equal rights, 
for each of us, to the products of our labour. Such is the- 
very basis of Co-Partnership, as distinguished from the wages 
system alone, and it is bound to stimulate efficiency 
and economy of products, for only by so doing can it increase 
our well-being and prosperity. 

If Co-Partnership fails to increase the quantity of the 
products, or fails to improve the quality, or fails to ensure 
economy of material, tools, or implements, or fails in the 
better organization of production, or fails to reduce the waste 
consequent on strikes and lock-outs, then it is perfectly 
obvious that Co-Partnership is an absolutely useless imple- 
ment of production. Any short-cuts to progress will fail, and 
any false methods will only mislead us. In the future, as in 
the past, the prizes in commerce, as in all other human 
activities, will always go to the strong, and we cannot alter 
that law, but it is equally true that such prizes cannot he held 
by the cunning. Only the strong can hold them, and the mere 
conflict of private interests in producing wealth will not enable 
us to hold the prize that has been won as a result of inde- 
fatigable labour and struggle. Business productive enter- 
prise, as in all other activities, must end where it begins, 
namely, with the workers of all ranks and positions who are 
producing wealth. The way we work together under the wage 
system is, in my opinion, always against the modern spirit 
of the times — selfish Capital and selfish Labour cannot live 
together as efficient and economical producers of commodities. 
The Golden Rule, brotherhood and confidence, so often 
despised, must be introduced into business, as into all other 
affairs of life. The business world is quivering with an im- 
pulse at the present time, and with a strong desire, to get 
workers into more intimate connection with each other and to 
cease the continual warfare that exists. The elevation of the 
workers to the front rank is an ideal worth living for, and, 
in the end, there is very little else in business after the mere 
productive enterprise has been developed — there is very little 
else worth living for. 

There can be no successful development of business that 
does not carry the employees along with it. Consciously or 
unconsciously, we must all aim at the common good of all 
engaged in any productive enterprise. Well-being first of all, 



100 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

as I have already mentioned, consists in the increase of the 
power of production and the consequent increase of wages, 
and also a decrease in the hours of labour, without which 
there can be no increase in social well-being. Now, this 
increase can only be secured by increasing the producing 
power of labour with less expenditure of vital force, and this 
will be followed by a reduction of the proportion of cost which 
labour bears to the total cost of any product, and which, in 
turn, will lead to a reduction in the cost of the product, and, 
consequently, to its increased consumption, and this, in turn, 
will allow an increased margin in the wages to be paid to 
Labour, and a reduction in the hours of labour. In fact, the 
whole progress of civilization in the last century under the 
wages system has followed along those lines — there may have 
been ebbs and flows in the tide, but the tide of social better- 
ment has flowed along this channel. 

Now, we have to consider, when we approach the subject of 
Co-Partnership, to what extent, and by what means, can the 
productiveness of labour be improved and the expenditure of 
the vital force of labour be lessened, and this has to be our 
first step if we would make an}' advancement. If we consider 
the question of fanning, we find that, where the productive- 
ness of labour on the land results in the lowest return, wages 
are the lowest. When, from eight bushels of wheat from the 
acre, we have by better cultivation increased the yield to over 
thirty bushels per acre — practically quadrupled the production 
— we find that with the quadruplication of the product the 
wages are two-and-a-half times what they were, the hours of 
labour are shorter, and that the product is consequently cheaper, 
all because the production is four times greater. You will 
find to-day in our own country, as in all other countries, that 
where the quantity produced at any stage of manufacture is 
greatest, with the lowest cost of labour in proportion to the 
total cost of the product, then wages are the highest ; and 
that where the total cost of labour is the highest in pro- 
portion to the total cost of the product, wages are the lowest. 
Now, with the lessened proportion of labour to the total cost, 
there will have developed, to a very marked degree, the 
cheapening of the product, and only on these well-defined 
and well-tested lines can there be an increase in the earning 
power of labour. 



CO-PA RTNERSHTP 1 01 

There is one essential fact which is overlooked by most 
working-men when they approach this subject, namely, that, 
simultaneously with the increase of average wages there has 
been a correspondingly steady decrease in the average earnings 
of capital invested in industrial enterprise. This is a solid 
fact that ought not to be overlooked. Interest on capital 
is highest in all countries where the productive power of 
labour is the lowest, and also wages are the lowest ; and in 
all countries where the productive power of labour is the 
highest, there wages are also the highest, and interest on 
capital the lowest. Of course, there may have been periods 
when, the demand for Capital having exceeded the supply — 
for short periods — Capital may have had an advantage ; but 
we can trace without possibility of error that, to increase the 
productive power of labour and the wages to Labour, has the 
tendency to decrease the interest earned by Capital. 

The reason for this is obvious. Capital invested in industry 
has always to be engaged in seeking to meet its liabilities for 
interest, and, therefore, must employ Labour, and when Capital 
invested in industry ceases to employ Labour to meet its obli- 
gations for interest — this great fact has to be borne in mind 
— Capital then has ceased to exist. It is entirety apparent 
that the larger the prospective return on Capital invested in 
industries, and the more Capital competes to obtain Labour, 
this must result ultimately in less interest being received by 
Capital itself. Every period of extreme industrial activity 
must, of course, see some slight modification in this. Now, 
whilst at the same time that Capital has been receiving less, 
Labour of all kinds, including salary to Management, has 
received more, not only have the nominal wages increased, 
but the actual wages, calculated in the purchasing power, have 
increased also. 

Now, we therefore see, in view of the progress we have 
made in the nineteenth century, that the wages system and 
the so-called capitalist system have no reason to be 
apologetical for themselves, and it behoves any one who, like 
myself, believes in Co-Partnership, to have full regard to this 
solid fact in considering new methods for betterment and 
advancement of social well-being. The present wages 
and so-called capitalist system is in operation all over the 
world, and it has given us more and better food, more and 



102 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

better clothing, more and belter houses, more and better 
education, more and better wages, shorter hours, lower cost 
of commodities, lower cost of travelling, better health, more 
rapid transit, and better means of recreation. But the so- 
called capital and wages system has only succeeded to the 
extent that it has moved along the lines of the principle of 
enlightened self-interest. Now, I claim that still greater 
development can be made in our system of employment of 
labour in industrial activities by directly increasing the 
personal interest of labour engaged in industries, and, if this 
is so, then Co-Partnership, as I understand it, must depend 
for its power to increase our rate of progress on improving 
the social conditions, and on increasing our economical pro- 
ducing powers. Co-Partnership cannot reverse the law that 
has operated during the last century in giving us more and 
better food and clothing, higher wages, etc., by means of our 
power to produce more of those products at a cheaper cost, in 
fewer hours of labour. If Co-Partnership does not operate on 
those lines that have been so well tested, and are the proved 
basis of our success in the past, then it is a useless and 
silly fad. 

Co-Partnership must, as the very charter of its existence, 
so operate that it can produce more and better food, clothing, 
houses, and social requirements, in fewer hours and with less 
unhealthy strain and stress, and with ability to meet the 
problem of increased demands in wages by giving Labour, in 
addition to wages, a share in the profits of the enterprise. 
How does Co-Partnership propose to achieve success ? Co- 
Partnership does not propose to abolish the wages system. 
It does not propose to abolish payment of interest on Capital ; 
but it does propose a modification of the wages system, and 
a modification in the relation of that portion of Capital 
engaged in industrial products which is at risk, which is 
taking the risk of the enterprise, but no change in the relation 
of that portion of Capital which seeks a more secure position 
at a fixed rate of interest. Co-Partnership proposes to retain 
Management in its present position, and it proposes to retain 
the wages system and also interest on Capital, and to ask that 
portion of Capital which is at risk to join in partnership 
with Labour. 

Now, there is one distinct fact in connection with modern 



I < )-PAKTNERSII] P 103 

productive activity under the co-operative system. It has 
been a wonder to many people why co-operative production 
has not progressed at a greater rate. In my opinion, the 
cause of this partial failure of co-operative production has 
been that the co-operative system ignores Management, and 
lowers Management into the position of a fixed wage-drawer ; 
whereas, under the ordinary system of production, Manage- 
ment, as owner, has had a direct interest in the profits of the 
undertaking. The Co-Partnership system we advocate would 
remove Labour from its present position of wage-drawer or 
salary-drawer to the higher position of a partner in the success 
or failure of the business, and, to that extent, it is an advance 
which moves the whole of those engaged in industrial pro- 
duction on to a higher platform, whilst the co-operative system 
lowers those engaged in direct management to the ranks of 
the wage or salary worker. 

In agriculture, Co-Partnership, as you all know, is the 
oldest system of any. In the fishing industry, Co-Partnership 
is the practice, and always has been, from time immemorial. 
The owner finds the ship and takes his share of the catch ; 
the captain finds the skill and ability in navigation, and his 
labour, and he takes his share of the catch ; and the crew, in 
their turn, take their share of the catch. Now this is, I think, 
the most concrete example of Co-Partnership we have, and we 
may depend upon it that fishing on those lines will have the 
effect on all in the fishing-boat that Co-Partnership will have, 
namely, a direct interest in the profits of their joint combined 
efforts, so that in alertness to discover the whereabouts of the 
fish, and in lowering and hauling in the nets, every faculty 
shall be exerted in order that the catch be as large as possible. 

We are all servants of the public engaged in industrial 
occupations, and there is no distinction between us, and that 
is why I do not agree with the terms " master " and " servant," 
as we are all servants of the public — the so-called master just 
as much as the merest office-boy. Neither so-called master 
nor servant is satisfied with the present system ; the em- 
ployer has to adopt many makeshifts, such as piece-work, 
bonuses, and such-like, to increase the interest of Labour in 
the product of Labour ; but, in my opinion, the only solid 
means of realizing such ideals is by giving the workman a 
direct interest in the product of his own handiwork, and I 



104 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

claim that the only effective way in which that can be done 
is by means of Co-Part nership. No one considers that the 
wages system is ideal ; employers, by their actions, if not by 
their words, admit that it is a wrong basis, and the best we 
can say of it is, that it is an advance on all previous systems. 

I claim that the next advance we have to make to a higher 
level must be by means of Co-Partnership, and I will tell you, 
apart from the points I have referred to, one great gain this 
will be over the wages system, namely, the reducing of the 
strain and responsibility thrown upon the employer or pro- 
prietor of the business. The man who draws wages cannot 
reasonably be expected to worry about production and profits 
when he goes home at nights, but the man whose capital and 
whose very livelihood is involved is bound to worry about 
these. When we are all Co-Partners, this worry, now pressing 
with crushing force on the heads and backs of a few men, will 
rest on the backs, the brains, and the heart of the whole body 
of those who are engaged in the industry. Co-Partnership 
will give equal interest, and is, therefore, bound to give equal 
responsibility to each by substituting a partner for a wage- 
drawer, whether the profits have increased or not. I do not 
see any reason why profits should not be increased, but 
whether profits are increased or not, the enjoyments and the 
pleasures in business, and the relief from worry and strain in 
working with Co-Partners rather than with wage-drawers, will 
more than compensate. 

Modern industrialism has deprived us of the ability to pro- 
duce goods individually. One man, for instance, has no power 
to produce one hundred pins as a commercial proposition 
successfully, but one hundred men, taking the various stages 
of the production of pins, going hand-in-hand, can produce 
hundreds of millions of pins as a successful commercial pro- 
position. Now, there is only one elevation possible for the 
worker, as for all others ; he must preserve his individualistic 
faculties, and must cultivate their extension and his higher 
powers, and if our system of Co-Partnership does not inspire 
a man with the idea of raising himself, then it is futile. You 
cannot push a man up a ladder—there is no other means of 
elevating a man than by letting him climb up the ladder by 
himself, and that is equally true of the master and of the man. 
There are not two different ladders— and I want to emphasize 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 105 

this — one for the master and one for the workman ; but they 
have both to climb the same ladder, which ladder is — produc- 
ing more goods with less labour in fewer hours, so as to allow 
for larger wages and a bigger margin for profit. The idea that 
the workman's interest is opposed to the master's is entirely 
wrong, as they are both bound together, and it must not be 
forgotten that the workman — the human machine — if he is 
a " hand," is human. I always resent the phrase that we have, 
when we speak of so many " hands," as if we were dealing with 
a mere hand without the brain or heart of a man. I believe 
that, if we appeal to a man's sense of justice and right, we 
may take him into our confidence and elevate his character, 
and, in that way, we shall have assistance in our business, 
which will not only make our business run more smoothly, but 
will also assist us from the point of view of cheaper methods 
of production, by the high efficiency this will bring out. Just 
as machinery, electricity, steam, and all other mechanical 
appliances of productive power have enormously increased 
wealth, so I believe that if we take the workman more into 
our confidence, so as to develop his highest powers by making 
him a Co-Partner, he will become a better producer of the 
products he turns out, because we shall have fostered a spirit 
of comradeship and brotherhood. 

I always resent the maudlin sentiment that is often talked 
in reference to Co-Partnership. Sometimes it is described as 
extremely " generous," and the man at the back of it is spoken 
of as a " philanthropist " ; that is all nonsense, and probabty 
this is the reason why Co-Partnership schemes in the past 
have not lasted for more than five 3'ears on an average. If a 
man thinks Co-Partnership is a system which is " generous " or 
" philanthropic," he is approaching it on lines which will, 
sooner or later, bring it to decay. We do not consider it 
generous to buoy channels of rivers, nor do we consider it 
philanthropic to put lighthouses round our coast to mark 
sunken rocks, but we consider all that good, sound business ; 
and I say that, to enable the individual to avoid shipwreck on 
rocks of wrong methods, to enable us to raise our fellow- 
workers to the height which inspires ourselves, is bound to 
cheapen production. Then let us dismiss all vague, maudlin, 
wrong ideas on the subject of Co-Partnership. Co-Partnership 
can only be a means of better, fairer, and more just relation- 



106 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

ship of so-called employer and employee, resulting in better 
productive activities. 

With regard to the question of management, I want you to 
understand that the progress of Co-Partnership must, essen- 
tially, be one of education ; for instance, you could not take a 
man from the ranks, as a navvy or labourer, and suddenly 
make him a Director of a Company with ideals and standards 
of high management ; it is not reasonable to expect it. 

In conclusion, and with your permission, I would just like 
to quote from Robert Browning a few lines which, slightly 
adapted, seem appropriate to such an occasion as this : — 

The common problem, yours, mine, every one's, 
Is — not to fancy what were fair in life 
Provided it could be — but, finding first 
What may be, then find how to make it fair 
Up to our means : a very different thing ! 
***** 

Our business is not to remake ourselves, 

But make the absolute best of what "God made. 



VI 
CO-PARTNERSHIP AND HIGH WAGES 

[From an Address by Lord Leverhulme to the Co-Partners' Club, 
Port Sunlight, April 17, 1914.] 

I believe that wages are going steadily to rise, and I believe 
that the firms who are giving Co-Partnership can always 
rise with them and always continue to pay the highest rate 
of wages. Of course, as I have always explained, we have 
ourselves to make the profits, and I want to point out what is 
the difference between an article priced by the manufacturer 
on a high scale of wages, as in some countries I have visited, 
and the benefit to the man who produces articles and receives 
wages and also a share in the profits. The complaint in all 
high-waged countries is. the high cost of living. It does not 
matter what country you go to, where the wages are high 
the cost of living is proportionately high, and when the 
English Government made their Board of Trade Report, 
they found that although the wages were lower in England, 
the amount paid for house accommodation, the quantity of 
clothing and food which could be purchased by those wages 
was greater than the amount which could be purchased with 
the higher wages in other countries. In other words, the 
conditions of the workers in this country, taking the cost 
of living, clothing, and food in proportion to their wages, 
was better in the United Kingdom than in any other country 
in the world. But I want this country to have the highest 
wages possible without the cost of living being increased. 
If the cost of living goes up here, as I have seen it go up in 
other countries, a Board of Trade Report would come along 
and say we are no better off in 1930 than in 1910. The wages 
in 1930, 1 am sure, are going to be very much higher than now, 
but in my opinion real betterment can onlv be obtained by 

107 



108 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Co- Partnership. Now, this is a business proposition, and i 
notice Mr. Greenhalgh transfixing me with his accountancy 
eye, and I hope he will tell me if I am wrong in my next remark. 
If any statement of cost is prepared for me with regard to any 
article we produce, Mr. Greenhalgh will put down in that state- 
ment the wages of the men who are working in that depart- 
ment. Whatever wages they receive will go as a charge 
against that article. In addition, there will be the interest 
and depreciation on the machine they are working. Then 
there will be the cost of power, interest and depreciation on 
buildings, which in turn will be made up on the basis of the 
amount paid to the men who made the bricks and the mortar ; 
the joiners who made the doors, windows, and flooring, and 
so on. Mr. Greenhalgh never inserts in that statement any 
provision for cost of Co-Partnership share of profits or any 
dividends to Shareholders at all. We see that there is a 
margin of profit which, in our opinion, will be possible of achieve- 
ment. We might ask a profit which would result in not 
being able to sell our article at the price, or which would result 
in the article being sold at a loss. But the prime cost, whatever 
it is, is made up of wages, interest and depreciation on build- 
ings, plant, and machinery, and all fixed charges. You all 
know that. If we work, therefore, on a Co-Partnership basis, 
and divide the profits, the profits come without increasing the 
prime cost of the product. I want you to see that. The 
profits come without increasing the cost of the article pro- 
duced. The employer always takes into account the cost of 
materials, wages, etc., but he never takes into his cost the 
profit he desires to make on the contract. He allows for a 
profit, and therefore if we divide the profits with the workers, 
we are sharing in the reservoir of profits, which have not 
been added to the cost of the article, but have been produced 
by the business ability, by the foresight, by the knowledge 
of the markets, etc., of the employer. In hardly any industry 
can you see a profit on an article if you eliminate foresight 
in buying your supplies, skill in managing your business, and 
knowledge of trade conditions in selling your article. There 
never is a profit if you are not possessed of these, and the reason 
why some firms collapse, and why some men are never able to 
carry on a business, is because they never see beyond the 
end of their nose. They can only think of the immediate 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 109 

job in hand, and can only buy to-day if they can sell to-day. 
They cannot see into the long and distant future. They 
cannot think what the effect of this or that will be ten years 
hence and so on. In our business we are to-day only getting 
profits, or at any rate only for the last few years, practically 
to-day, from undertakings which we started in 1901, 1902 
and 1903, and to-day we are spending money in many direc- 
tions which cannot bring us profits until five years hence. 

That is the way profits are made. In the open market of 
competition between two firms there never will be a profit, 
never could be a profit. It is only this business acumen 
and foresight that will ever produce profits. Therefore 
profits are not added to the cost, they are the reward of 
efficiency of the staff, and the reward of efficiency of the 
employer, and if we enter into a system of Co-Partnership 
we can produce profits by our ability, " Waste not, want 
not," and by our efficienc}', without increasing the cost of 
the goods. Therefore, the betterment of the workers in this 
country will be increased in the same way as the betterment 
of the masters has been — not by salaries. I can tell you 
of private firms where partners may be drawing £10,000 
a year in profits and only £500 a year as salary, the salary 
being put down as all they would be worth as ordinary managers 
of the business. What the profits are after they have charged 
that salary they take as partners. That is the common 
rule under all partnership arrangements. That profit has 
been made by their business acumen and foresight, but is 
not added to the cost of the article. If it had been added 
to the cost, the article, perhaps, could not have been sold. 
They have been able to make a profit by their application 
to business, by their keenness and alertness, and by their 
acquaintance with the markets, and so we can, and why should 
not that spirit permeate through all the staff and animate 
every one if we are going to share in the profits ? If this 
system is right we can increase the well-being and betterment 
of the members of the staff without increasing the cost of 
living. There is no other system in the world by which this 
may be done. 

Wages Boards ma}^ sit and decide that the cost of living 
has gone up and that another 2s. a week, or whatever it may 
be, must be added to the wages of labour. The cost of the 



110 THE SJX-HOUR DAY 

article is then increased, and this goes on all round till the 
effect produced is that the cost of living has a£ain gone up 
all round, and the labourer says, " I am no better off for the 
2S." How can he be ? It is an impossibilit}'. If you are 
going to put 2s. more on, say, to the price of soap, soap will 
be dearer — there is no other way. But if we join in partner- 
ship and by business acumen and foresight can produce our 
goods with skill and ability, and market them with skill and 
ability, we can produce our profits without adding to the cost 
of the goods. We can divide these profits amongst us, in- 
creasing the benefit to every one, actually, really, and tangibly, 
not artificially and nominally. In one of the countries I 
visited, I saw a house of the type in which you would care to 
live, and the rent was 22s. 6d. a week, and for very poor houses 
the rent was 14s. a week. But there is no mystery about it. 
The builder has to consider the cost of wages for the brick- 
layers, etc., and the cost of materials. The house costs a 
certain sum, and that fixes the rent, and if he cannot get 
the rent he does not build the house. So, therefore, the supply 
of houses is just in proportion to what people will pay, and 
what the house costs. It cannot be any other way. The 
same applies to a tailor. He has to pay certain wages, and 
the coat must cost so much. The point is, we are all con- 
sumers as well as producers. 

I want wages to go up. They will go up, but I want better 
conditions to go up in advance of wages. I do not want 
the rise to be an artificial one, but a real one, so that as wages 
go up, better conditions may go up with them. It is not a 
real increase when a man receives more wages and has to pay 
all the advance away in higher cost of living. 

In one country a number of people called upon me and 
asked me to help them with their passage home. I also 
received a pathetic letter from one woman in which she told 
me a tale of great hardship, of how her husband and herself 
managed to live. It must be so in these countries. It could 
be no other way, because we are all workers and all con- 
sumers. It may be all right for persons who draw their money 
from some other source, but the workers of a country are 
the consumers of a country. When they draw higher wages 
articles must be dearer, but if you work together as Co- 
Partners with fairness, and with determination to conduct 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 111 

our business properly, the same will not occur. A man who 
becomes a builder on his own account knows perfectly well 
that his success or otherwise depends entirely on his skill. 
It depends on that skill whether or not he makes a profit 
on a contract. Are not we all Co-Partners and therefore can 
all be profit earners ? I have tried to show you Co-Partnership 
is real. I have tried to show you that those firms mentioned 
in the official report of the French Government who have 
Co-Partnership are paying the highest rate of wages, working 
the shortest hours, have the best sick benefits and best 
holiday arrangements. Therefore, those advantages are not 
at the expense of the, wages. Those benefits come -out of 
the increased efficiency of the employer and the increased 
efficiency of the workers. 



VII 
HARMONIZING CAPITAL AND LABOUR 

Manchester, October 20, 1916. 

[The difficult problem of the relationship between Co- Partnership 
and Trade Unionism was faced by Lord Leverhulme in a 
speech delivered at the Manchester Athenaeum. He said :] 

I find from old records that it was nearly forty years ago — 
in the year 1877 — that I began to experiment on lines which, 
eleven years later, namely in 1888, led me to adopt a system 
of what, for want of a better name, I called Prosperity- 
Sharing. But it was not until twenty-one years after that, 
namely in 1909, that I adopted Co-Partnership completely 
and fully, as a practical business relationship between so- 
called employer and employee — so you will see I have not 
" rushed in where angels fear to tread," but gone cautiously, 
and not too hurriedly, forward to full development, as becomes 
a Lancashire man whose father was born in Bolton and whose 
mother was born in Manchester — and not even north of the 
Tweed can more prudent, cautious forbears be found. If 
you asked me where I first met with the idea of Co-Partner- 
ship, I should have to answer with the Lancashire man who 
was asked where he first met his wife, and who replied : "I 
did not meet her, she overtook me." 

Before launching myself fully on the tempestuous ocean 
of Capital and Labour, I would like, with your permission, 
to change the title, which was " Mutuality of Capital and 
Labour," to " Harmonizing Capital and Labour." The 
dictionary meaning of " harmonizing " is " adjusting in fit 
proportion," and, really, this meaning seems to define my 
address much more accurately than any other. 

The very idea of an attempt at harmonizing may upset 

many deep-rooted eighteenth- and nineteenth-century false 

112 



CO-PARTNERSHIP US 

ideas, founded on " master and man " theories that Labour 
is merely the paid tool of Capital. These false ideas have 
got to go " bag and baggage," for the solution of our problem 
can only be found by frankly admitting that no individual, 
or body of individuals, representing either Capital or Labour, 
can disregard the rights of others or their own duties. What 
these rights and duties of each to the other are we must 
endeavour to find out, but the solution can only be found 
on sound economic lines. Mere desire for harmony will not 
suffice, however earnest and sincere it may be. Business is 
not only the science of the production and distribution of 
goods, it is also a social science. But the human elements 
combined in Capital and Labour are neither social scientists 
nor political economists nor philanthropists ; yet to be able 
to meet the modern twentieth-century outlook they ought 
to be acquainted with certain general basic principles. 

We must admit that in spite of better conditions of employ- 
ment and higher wages the present position occupied by 
Labour is not acceptable to the workers. 

The so-called practical business man, ostrich-like, buries 
his head in his ledger and ignores the writing on the wall. 
We must not let this attitude influence ourselves, for, after 
all, has it not been truly said that the so-called practical 
business man is one who continues to practise the mistakes 
of his predecessors ? Our duty is to search out certain basic 
principles that must serve Capital and Labour somewhat in 
the same way as the compass serves the mariner in navigating 
the trackless sea, or as the calculations of the astronomer 
make clear the mysteries of the starry heavens, or as the 
investigations of the chemist have laid bare the secrets of 
organic and inorganic matter. For in this relation between 
Capital and Labour, which must be acknowledged to be the 
greatest and most intricate problem of all, no attempt has 
yet been made to get down to first principles. As regards 
Capital alone, and solely as Capital, this remark does not 
apply; for in respect of the science of banking, compilation 
of statistics on currency, bank reserves, rates of exchange, 
and so on ad infinitum, business men representative of 
Capital have taken care to be fully equipped for every emer- 
gency. But no corresponding statistics dealing with the 
human element in Labour have been prepared. 

9 



114 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Of course, I do not say that statistics of wages, hours of 
employment, strikes, lock-outs, are not available, because 
these can be obtained to the finest detail ; but Labour as 
a human element in production and distribution has not 
been scientifically analysed as Capital has been for the 
guidance of Capital. The workman called " Labour " is no 
longer a " hand " ; Labour to-day is an educated man, and 
his wants are growing and his outlook is extending. He is 
to-day the hope of the optimist and the despair of the pessi- 
mist. Labour to-day is ambitious, and has created for 
himself and his wife and family new and better standards 
of living than his father, and still more than his grandfather, 
ever dreamt of. 

In our first consideration of the new conditions, let us 
remember that in dealing with them sound methods are 
more important than the attainment of immediate results ; 
unfortunately, as between Capital and Labour, it is too often 
only the immediate spot-view that prevails. Present relation- 
ships and present conditions are causing profound dissatisfac- 
tion to both Capital and Labour. This great war has forced 
upon us a better and closer relationship between all classes 
in the British Empire and has aroused our industrial con- 
science. This war has revealed to us that, bedded in each 
and every stratum of society, we can find the highest ideals 
of truest patriotic service ; that for the cause of right, life 
itself is as freely given up by the lord as by the labourer ; 
and that the British Empire possesses the finest material 
in men and women, bred both in mansion and cottage, that 
the world can produce. 

We only require to recognize the rights of others and our 
own duties by adapting our industrial system to these high 
ideals to do away for all time with the bogey of clash of 
interests between Capital and Labour. Cannot Capital and 
Labour, after having fought and died side by side in the 
trenches of Flanders and France, regardless of wealth or 
station, be won over to fight for the success of our Empire 
industrially after the final war victory on the sanguinary 
field of battle ? Too long has there existed a wide gulf 
between Capital and Labour ; for too long have suspicion 
and distrust produced active opposition between these twin 
brothers in productive enterprise. Nqt until Capital and 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 1 1 5 

Labour have solved their difficulties in working frankly and 
whole-heartedly together can the Empire be as well equipped 
for the coming war of commerce as she has been rapidly 
and efficiently equipped for the war of armaments, or be 
able to devote all her energies to expansion and betterment. 

It is merely a question of harmonizing interests and forces. 
It is not a question altogether of higher wages, shorter hours, 
or better welfare conditions of employment. The profound 
dissatisfaction with present conditions goes much deeper 
than this. This dissatisfaction has its root and spring in 
the fact that no attempt has been made by Capital to study 
the human element to be dealt with and handled. The 
cause of disagreement between Capital and Labour is quite 
as much psychological as it is material. Human nature 
called Labour has two very strongly marked characteristics — 
it is at one and the same time gregarious and individualistic. 
To the Socialist, man is purely a gregarious being, and Social- 
ists find that they preach in vain the doctrine that every 
man ought to contribute to the Commonwealth according to 
his abilities and to share out of the Commonwealth according 
to his necessities. -But apart from the impracticability of 
this theory, in that it provides no solution as to who shall 
be the fair just judge, possessed of superhuman insight, to 
decide as to claims in contribution according to abilities 
or to award benefits according to necessities, it has failed 
hopelessly to interest Labour, because it has ignored the 
other equally marked characteristic of our common humanity, 
namely, that in addition to being gregarious, man is also 
strongly and intensely individualistic. 

These being two very strongly marked characteristics of 
human nature, we are not surprised to find that, whilst the 
greatly preponderating majority of mankind prefer to live 
in communities, such as cities and towns, rather than in 
villages or on the scattered country-side, mankind demands, 
and insists upon having, his own individual house and home ; 
and that when housed in barracks or huge tenements piled 
floor upon floor, one on top of another, with common stair- 
cases, he rapidly degenerates. Give mankind homes fiee 
from overcrowding, where each can enjoy his own individual- 
istic garden in addition to the public park, then, with such 
a combination of the communal life with individualistic 



116 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

environment, they improve in bodily health and in mental 
and moral strength. Equally, mankind prefer to follow 
their daily occupation in groups and masses, as in workshop 
and factory. But the individual still insists on retaining 
his individualism, and looks for his own individualistic recog- 
nition and reward for his labour. The joiner or mechanic 
will not be willing, as the Socialist would wish, to contribute 
according to his trained skill and ability and receive as reward 
exactly the equal, provided his necessities were the same, 
as the unskilled labourer. He would not do so whether 
working at the State Dockyard, or Woolwich Arsenal, or in 
Government Postal Service, any more than for the capitalist. 
And he is right, because the socialistic system would make 
parasites and paupers of one-half the human race. 

Now, this is the situation we have to face. Each of us 
contains in his own mental outlook the elements of an oli- 
garchy and of a democracy ; and as our present industrial 
system is founded on these attributes, it is scarcely surprising 
that it has been described, and correctly so, as an oligarchy 
existing in a democratic country. This position of our 
British industrial system is the result of the haphazard way 
in which industries have grown up from the small workshop 
of two or three centuries ago, when the capitalist was also 
a workman, and master and man met on terms of equality. 
But modern industrial conditions, with thousands and tens 
of thousands of workmen, and in at least one industry a 
quarter of a million workmen, under one oligarchical rule, 
are 'intensely anti-democratic, and as such violate the gregari- 
ous instincts of humanity. And just as it is true that the 
position of British industries to-day is the result of yester- 
day, so their position to-morrow will depend on our actions 
of to-day. Capitalists have now the task set them to democ- 
ratize their system, and to create conditions that will enable 
Labour to take some democratic share in management, and 
some responsibility for the success of the undertaking. Pro- 
ductive and distributive business must in the future be 
carried on under less oligarchic and under more democratic 
conditions. Labour will not be brought to work side by side 
with and to harmonize with Capital merely by ever higher 
and higher wages, shorter and shorter hours, combined with 
better and better welfare conditions, 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 117 

The wage9 system has broken down as a sole and only 
solution. As huge businesses have sprung into existence, 
the difficulties of the wages system as such have increased. 
It is impossible under the wages system alone to make 
Labour realize that the true interests of Labour and Capital 
are identical. There is a story told of a Lancashire farmer 
who, on his wedding-day, after the return from church, took 
his wife into the orchard, where he had arranged a long rope 
hanging over the fork of a big tree. He asked his wife to 
get hold of one end of the rope, and he himself took hold 
of the other. He then gave the signal for them both to pull 
their strongest, and he soon convinced his wife that, pulling 
against each other, neither could pull the rope over to his 
or her side. Having taught this lesson, he asked that they 
should both pull together at one and the same end, when, 
of course, the rope was pulled over almost without an effort. 
Let us hope that pulling against each other during the cen- 
turies past has taught this lesson to both Capital and Labour : 
that no progress can be made in that way, as compared with 
the progress to be made by both pulling together. 

Productive and distributive business must be so organ- 
ized as to harmonize the relative positions of Capital and 
Labour. The claim of Capital for as big an output as possible 
at as low a cost as possible has hitherto had to pull against 
the claims and aims of Labour for as high wages as possible 
with as restricted an output as possible. The capitalist has 
a deep-rooted belief in the fallacy that the lower the wages 
and the longer the hours worked by Labour are, the lower 
the cost of production must be — the falsehood of which has 
been proved, over and over again, by the low wages and 
long hours of Hindoos and Chinamen, as compared with the 
lower cost obtained by the extremely high wages and shorter 
hours of the United States. Labour has a deep-rooted belie 
in the fallacy that there is only a certain limited amount 
of work to be divided amongst an ever-increasing number 
of workmen, and that, consequently, restriction of output 
is the most sure and certain way to provide work for all ; 
the falsehood of which has been proved by the fact that 
restriction of output has been shown always to act as a 
deterrent to consumption and to demand for labour, whilst 
the increased output per man in the United States has 



118 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

stimulated and increased demand and resulting employment 
and wages. The lesson of this for the capitalist is that high 
wages, short hours, and good healthy conditions, by increasing 
intelligence and efficiency, increase output and actually 
reduce costs. And the lesson for Labour is that increased 
output stimulates consumption, and, consequently, demand 
for production and distributive labour, the fact being that 
consumers of all classes supply themselves where they can 
be best and most economically served. 

These are such well-known and simple truths that it is 
almost necessary to apologize for calling attention to them. 
We thus see that Capital and Labour, by faith in these 
fallacies, are merely pulling against each other. How can 
we harmonize these conflicting elements ? Only by Capital 
identifying itself with Labour, and creating for Labour the 
same economic environment and conditions as Capital itself 
enjoys. Only by entrance into Co-Partnership together can 
Capital and Labour be brought to pull together, and only 
by Co-Partnership can they be harmonized. 

We are agreed that the elements in production and dis- 
tribution are Capital and Labour — I prefer myself to make 
it a three-legged stool by including Management as apart 
from both Capital and Labour. But sometimes Manage- 
ment is part of the activities of Capital, and at other times 
must be included with Labour. We British have always 
been well supplied with all three. We acquired the capital 
because we had Management and Labour, and good Manage- 
ment always accumulates capital. The accumulation of 
capital that we may look forward to during the twentieth 
century is bound to be greater than was the case during the 
nineteenth century, and still more so than during preceding 
centuries. But whilst we had no difficulty under the 
existing system in the acquisition of capital, we have not 
been equally successful in its distribution, and this is the 
root and cause of all the antagonism between Capital and 
Labour. This system, under which all the profits or losses 
go to Capital, ignores entirely the psychology of the work- 
man. He is not a mere machine to be kept well oiled with 
good wages, well tended by not being worked for too long 
hours, and kept in good going repair by welfare systems, 
canteens, and good housing conditions. He is a complex 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 119 

human being, with all the ambitions, ideals, and mental out- 
look possessed by the capitalist in an equal and sometimes 
superior degree. 

If high wages, short hours, good housing meant finality 
to Labour Unrest, then Labour would not be a man but a 
vegetable. Labour has economic interests that also require 
satisfying, and that press on Capital for their solution. We 
have heard it said of our educational system, that to make 
it complete a ladder must be provided by which a boy or 
girl can climb from Board School to University ; so that an 
apt pupil might have the opportunity of living its full life 
without limitations from the environment in which it was 
born. To harmonize Capital and Labour similarly, a ladder 
must be provided from the humblest position in industrial 
organization to a seat on the Board of Directors. Capital 
must provide a broader outlook for Labour. 

Has not the political orator speechified, has not the elo- 
quent preacher sermonized, and the profound philosopher 
theorized, on the necessity for harmonizing Capital and 
Labour ? And yet it is all so very easy and simple. The 
only possible way of harmonizing Capital and Labour is to 
provide both with the same outlook by dividing the profits 
their joint labour has created fairly and squarely between 
them. On this system, each will also automatically share 
and suffer from losses when they have to be faced. Step 
by step the lesson is being taught and learned that the Co- 
partnership system is the only possible system for harmoniz- 
ing Capital and Labour ; and, fortunately, it is capable of 
application in principle, by varying methods, to all but a 
very limited few occupations ; and when applied honestly 
and faithfully, it has invariably produced improved relations, 
with better commercial results. With Co-Partnership comes 
less anxiety and reduced responsibility for Capital, for with 
division of profits must also be included division of responsi- 
bility and sharing of control. Co-Partners become more 
and more interested in the policy of the business as a whole, 
and associate themselves more and more with Management. 
There is no conflict in these Co-Partnership results ; and 
they satisfy the gregarious and democratic instincts of Labour 
and the equally strong individualistic instincts. Whilst Co- 
partnership satisfies the aspirations of the civic and demo^* 



120 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

cratic spirit of Labour, the wages system (varied as to rates 
to meet varying skill, strength or ability, or combined with 
piece-work rates or bonus or premium scales) still continues 
as a necessary basis of remuneration to satisfy the aspirations 
of our individualistic instincts. 

If Co-Part nership resulted in exclusion of individual re- 
ward for individual effort, then Co-Part nership would be 
foredoomed to failure in harmonizing Capital and Labour. 
Co-Partnership is required, and indeed is essential to success, 
as a means of equalization in the final division of profits, 
and as the preventer of the intrusion of a spirit of greed 
between Capital and Labour. But there is no reason why 
Co-Partnership, to meet the civic and democratic nature of 
humanity, should not be combined with salaries or wages 
varied to fit abilities and efficiency, and plus bonus, or 
premium, or piece-work, to supply the need of the indi- 
vidualistic spirit. And there is no reason why this combina- 
tion, by meeting the civic and democratic wants of humanity 
and satisfying individualistic aspirations, should not prove 
as successful a harmonizer as is possible in the present stage 
of advancement and development of industrial relationships. 

But Co-Partnership must be more than a mere division 
of profits. It must have its base resting firmly on the deep 
solid rock of human nature. It must be the means of enabling 
men under modern conditions, wherein thousands of workmen 
are operating together in factories, mines, and workshops, to 
do so as real Co-Partners. Labour must be Co-Partner with 
Capital in fact as well as in name. But this Co-Partnership 
must not extinguish or crush the strong spirit of individualism 
which is such a pronounced element in human nature. It 
must give to each man the stimulus and security of the man 
in business for himself. The British workman has a profound 
distrust and dislike of paternalism. Co-Partnership can only 
fail when Capital or Labour expect too much as a result 01 
it, and where Labour, after being taken into Co-Partnership, 
is not treated as a partner. Capital must not expect that 
Labour, after Co-Partnership, will cease to make demands 
for higher wages, or relinquish its right to combine in Trade 
Unions, or will not show disaffection if other conditions 
irritate or create a feeling of oppression ; and, equally, Co- 
Partnership must not be shipwrecked by Labour expecting 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 12 1 

that Capital shall cease to fill its function of control and to 
maintain discipline. 

At the same time, Trade Unionism ought not to be a 
barrier. Trade Unions are as essential under Co-Partnership 
as under the present existing system. Trade Unions are, 
for both Capital and Labour, indispensable as a means of 
collective bargaining. There is no reason why Trade Unions 
should be either apathetic, or, as is most often the case, 
openly hostile to Co-Partnership. Such hostility on the 
part of Trade Unions can only exist so long as they ignore 
the obvious fact that to make Labour Co-Partner with 
Capital is a democratic step tending in the right direction, 
by putting Labour on the road to share in Management 
and to enjoy increased welfare. For by Co-Partnership the 
total earnings will be increased by Profit-Sharing, and the 
total earnings must always include the payment of full wages 
on the Trade Union scale and for the Trade Union working 
hours. And it is obvious that if the total earnings are larger 
in Co-Partnership workshops, then this improvement is 
bound to react on all other workshops, and so Co-Partner- 
ship must inevitably tend to the improvement of backward 
industries. An intelligent Co-Partner, working under the 
above conditions, receiving full Trade Union wages and 
working Trade Union hours (including, when such is the 
rule, either bonus, premium, or piece-work additions), is 
bound to realize the value of his efforts to the business as 
a whole, as well as to himself as an individual. And so the 
outlook of the Co-Partner becomes broader and he becomes 
keen to adopt new methods calculated to produce a larger 
output with lessened cost of production, with the result of 
adding to the profits in which he himself and all Co-Partners 
share. High wages, bonuses, premiums, or piece-work, apart 
from a system of Co-Partnership, can alone bring no solution 
of Labour difficulties. Only the true spirit of Co-Partnership 
can tend in this direction, and, by combining the democratic 
with the individualistic attributes of human nature, will 
result not only in higher total earnings, but greater efficiency, 
happier life, and improved mental condition. Therefore, 
the opposition of Trade Unions can only be based on some 
fundamental misconception which assumes that the interests 
of Capital and Labour are diametrically opposed to each other. 



122 # THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Time, and the steady growth of the Co-Partnership movement, 
alone can correct this. 

Co-Partnership can do no more than produce the right 
environment and create conditions for Capital and Labour 
that are mutually healthy and stimulating. Thanks to our 
various Education Acts, from 1870 up to the present time, 
Labour to-day is alert and intelligent, and has imbibed 
ambitions and aspirations, and in addition Labour is 
gaining experience every day by service on local government 
bodies and on Trade Union committees, and is the better 
prepared and equipped to take greater responsibilities, but 
Labour must move gradually and somewhat slowly to the 
higher sphere of Directorships. 

But throughout it all, in seeking to harmonize Capital 
and Labour we must never lose sight of the fact that what 
is called the present Labour Unrest is healthy and encouraging, 
for it discloses a psychological problem just as large as one 
of wages and of hours of employment. And in this aspect, 
Co-Partnership means much more than sharing profits as an 
addition to wages. It means the spirit of comradeship — 
the spirit that recognizes equality and brotherhood ; and it 
is working on these lines that the harmonizing of Capital 
and Labour best promises to dispel the present atmosphere 
of suspicion and distrust. 



VIII 
TRADERS' PARTNERS 

Bolton, October n, 1917. 

[Addressing the Bolton Combined Traders' Association, Lord 
Leverhulme referred to the early days of his business career, 
when he was a grocer in Bolton and Wigan. His experiences 
in that business, combined with what he had leamt from his 
father, who was apprenticed to the same trade as long ago 
as 1824, had left upon his mind certain impressions to which 
he owed whatever success he had since attained. He thought 
the grocery trade afforded the best education a business man 
could possibly have. He said :] 

There are many ways besides sharing profits in which you 
can make those associated with you in business into partners. 
I know many businesses where Profit-Sharing and Co-Partner- 
ship in profits are quite impossible. Take the great business 
of domestic service. There are no profits appearing in the 
balance-sheet of servants of a household and the duties they 
perform, and yet we all know that a kind and encouraging 
word will do far more in making life comfortable to the 
servant and happy for the mistress, and in making the home 
bright and cheerful, than any mercenary bond there may be 
between them. And so, also, the trader, however small his 
staff may be, however impossible it may be to have a Profit- 
Sharing scheme of an elaborate nature, can, by consideration 
of his staff, make them just as enthusiastically his partners 
as by any sharing of profits whatever. Why, every trader 
must, if his business is to succeed, enthuse and put energy 
into his staff, and, believe me, enthusiasm and energy are 
synonymous terms. By consideration of their hours of 
work, by cheerfulness towards them, by courtesy to them, 
by the payment of the highest wage the business will afford, 

123 



124 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

the employer may energize his staff, and stimulate them 
in a way that would not be possible in a larger business, even 
with the most complicated, elaborate, complete, and generous 
scheme of Co-Part nership. There must be personal contact 
on these lines. 

You know, business is business ; and good business demands 
enthusiastic workers ; and you can't get energetic, efficient 
work without some bond of sympathy between employer 
and employee. Sympathy with the staff — why, look how it 
would clear away the cobwebs ! It would not only increase 
a trader's business, but would decrease the loss and expense, 
and it would not only increase his own happiness, but his 
popularity with his customers as well as his own staff ; and, 
further, it would enable a trader of mere mediocre ability 
to accomplish more in his business than a trader of great 
brilliance and genius could accomplish without it. It will 
bring up a mediocre man far in advance of the talent of a 
brilliant man. But I would like continually to repeat, in 
whatever I have to say, that there is no. philanthropy in 
business, and a trader cannot allow sympathy with his staff 
to fill his business with pensioners and inefficients. No 
matter how much an employer may idealize as to running 
his business for purposes other than mere money-making, he 
will find he must run his business for money-making if he 
wishes to make a perfect and ideal organization for his 
employees as well as for the customers he serves. He must 
work on ideal conditions for all his employees and his customers 
if he wishes to safeguard the capital he has in the business — 
to build up a solid, successful, money-making business. 

The trader must so balance his ideals with practical business 
as to neglect neither. At an Agricultural College a dis- 
cussion was taking place as to what slopes of land were best 
suited to give the biggest crops, and an old farmer, who knew 
nothing probably about scientific methods of farming and 
slopes of land, and so on, got up at the end of the discussion 
and said that in his experience it did not matter so much 
about the slope of the land as the slope of the man. And so 
I would say of every one of us in business, whatever systems 
we adopt > and whether we are able or unable to adopt some 
plan^of Profit-Sharing or Co-Partnership, far more will depend 
upon our own inclinations and leanings towards our ideals 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 125 

than any particular method we may adopt. The slope of 
a man can make success or failure, and it can make a mediocre 
man into a superman. 

Let us examine into the question of Co-Partnership on 
ordinary lines of Profit-Sharing in any business. There are 
three active partners, generally speaking, in every business. 
Whether we acknowledge Co-Partnership or not — whether 
we do anything to recognize it or not, there are three partners 
joined together — the employee, the public, and the proprietor. 
Each of these three partners has within himself three sleep- 
ing partners. I will call the Employees, the Public, and the 
Proprietors the active partners. The three sleeping partners 
are Habit, Inertia, and Imitation. 

One of the hard business facts of life that has an immense 
power on success is habit. It is by habit that we think and 
act most efficiently. We do very little efficient thinking 
until we do it by habit. If you watch the child first begin- 
ning to toddle, its footsteps falter ; but when it has learned 
to walk, and walks by habit, then it becomes a perfect walker. 
Habit means that condition of body and mind, or both, 
which has become established by constant repetition. The 
successful trader is the man who has acquired the best habits 
for his own particular business, and that is all that success 
means. Mediocrity, by constant repetition, can surpass 
brilliancy that has not acquired habits by constant repetition. 
We have had that experience, each of us, in our schooldays. 
We saw the less brilliant scholar, by constantly repeating 
and learning his lesson, able to pass examinations and take 
prizes that a more brilliant scholar, who would not go through 
the drudgery of repetition, failed to secure. The best way 
to acquire good habits is to make the mind lead off in the 
right direction, and the best business habit to be acquired 
first is system, a good system which leads to success. Success 
does not depend on the head of the business, the captain 
of the ship, being on the bridge all the time. With system, 
a man could multiply his powers a hundred-fold. A man 
with the aid of system can enable his shop assistants to get 
through ten times the work that they are capable of without 
system. Compare the shop or any business where no system 
prevails, where the master has no daily or hourly programme 
and where all is confusion, with the shop where system and 



126 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

order prevail, and you will at once see the difference. 
So that habit in business means, first of all, acquiring 
system. 

The second of these sleeping partners is Inertia. In ac- 
quiring habits we have to overcome Inertia. You see it 
when a horse is drawing a load. It takes many times the 
strain to start the movement, to overcome Inertia, than it 
does to maintain the movement ; and that is equally true 
of the effort to stop the movement. You can't stop an ex- 
press train in a moment any more than you can start it off 
at full speed. This principle applies equally, or more, to 
the beginning of new habits and to the stopping of old habits. 
The strong, progressive habit cannot at once overcome the 
Inertia of old habits. It is actually easier for some to do their 
work in the hardest and most difficult way possible, when 
that way is an acquired habit, than it is to change to new 
and easier methods. Now, this Inertia of old habits is the 
sole reason why young men get ahead of the older ones in 
every and any business. This fact about Inertia teaches us, 
as business men, that improvement in our business involving 
radical changes should not be made too suddenly, just as 
you would not turn a corner at top speed in a motor-car. 
Were we considering the introduction of Co-Partnership, the 
greatest radical change we can make in our business, it 
behoves us to bear in mind this principle of Inertia. 
It is an element in the minds of our staff and in our 
own minds. 

In overcoming Inertia we have the help of our third sleep- 
ing partner, Imitation. We all love to imitate what we see. 
If we wish to adopt Co-Partnership, our inclination is guided 
by our love of imitation, which helps us to overcome Inertia. 
A going concern has a goodwill. This goodwill is due to the 
effect of the increase in the volume of profits, proving that 
business is founded on right habits and on the firm basis 
of repetition and on the overthrow of Inertia. Before I pass 
to the active partners, let me just recapitulate these three 
sleeping partners. Habits, rightly founded, make for progress 
Inertia has to be overcome, but, at the same time, it does 
lend itself to stability. Imitation helps us to overcome 
Inertia, and Inertia is a natural tendency to continue without 
change. The only way to build a business and train a staff 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 127 

is to bear in mind these three principles. If we overlooked 
them we should get discouraged and give up our task, what- 
ever we had set ourselves to do. 

May I give you an instance of widespread Inertia we had 
through the country a few years ago ? You remember when 
Willett introduced his Daylight Saving Bill he was ridiculed 
in the House of Commons, and at once came against that 
huge mass of Inertia which could not be moved. But, in 
a little while, we began to think about it, and, although 
Willett did not live to see his plan adopted, the Inertia was 
overcome, and who, to-day, would go back to the old-time 
calendar in the summer months ? I mention that because 
it is such a recent and such a good illustration of the point 
I wish to bring out — that, in this huge problem of Co-Partner- 
ship, we have the same difficulty to face, and we must bear 
it in mind both for our own guidance and in the guidance 
of our staff, and in regard to the public we serve . 

Now, let us consider the three active partners : the Em- 
ployee, the Public, and the Proprietor. No proprietor, at 
any time, was independent of those about him, and he is 
more dependent upon them to-day than ever. He cannot 
succeed alone. Employers and employees must work together 
as partners with the public. Employers must recognize that 
their employees are an asset to the business. Hitherto, 
employers have simply looked upon the assistant as a liability 
that had to be cleared every week at pay-day. An enthu- 
siastic Co-Partnership employer, in a distributive business, 
has stated that his employees, since they had been made 
Co-Partners, have reduced his changes in his staff, increased 
the permanency of his staff by 35 per cent., and their efficiency 
by over 50 per cent. Every employer in a retail business 
knows that his point of contact with his customers depends 
on his staff. The nearer he can bring his staff to himself 
in their interest in and enthusiasm for the business, the more 
successful is his business likely to be. In fact, employers 
and employed are like the strands in a rope. Spun into a 
cable, they can bear great strain, but unwound and unravelled 
they can bear none. 

Now, we are told that a house divided against itself cannot 
stand, but modern business goes further than that. The 
position to-day in business is that a house must have unity 



128 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

of aim and purpose, and enthusiasm and loyalty ; otherwise 
it cannot stand. As an illustration of enormous power 
running to waste, take the Falls of Niagara. There is a 
similar enormous waste of energy when employees are outside 
the reach of a Co-Partnership, either in profit-sharing or in 
sympathy, in kind acts and consideration. Hundreds of 
millions of horse-power are running to waste at Niagara. 
A few of them have been chained up, and light up Buffalo 
and other cities, and drive many industries. But only the 
mere fringe of the power has been utilized, and I venture 
to say that, in most businesses, from 50 per cent, upwards 
of the ability of the staff is never developed at all. The 
employer must make the employee feel that he is his best 
friend, and that he is an inspiration to him ; that he is the 
employees' instructor, adviser, and helper. All this means 
confidence, trust, and leads up to Co-Partnership. 

There is a subtle influence, an atmosphere that emanates 
from the employer, and many a man in business has strangled 
the spirit of his employees by his cold, fault-finding methods. 
It is easy to judge the character and type of the employer 
by studying the character and type of employee working 
under him. If the employer is morose and gloomy, how can 
you expect his employees to be bright and cheerful with 
the customers in the shop ? Employers are learning more 
and more the value of creating a cheerful atmosphere in 
their business, equally with a cheerful, bright, newly decorated 
interior of their business premises. The two go together. 
None of us, I venture to say, would to-day consider it business- 
like to have the interior of our business premises slovenly, 
neglected, dirty, and requiring beautifying. We must be 
determined that the minds of our employees are just as free 
from cobwebs, and as bright, cheerful, and happy, if they are 
to be attractive to the customers who come into our shop. 
If one were to sow nettles and thistles, one would never expect 
to find a harvest of perfumed roses, sweet and fragrant ; 
and if we sow morose words amongst our staff, they will 
reach, through our staff, to our customers, and drive them 
away. We none of us can do our best work under any other 
conditions than when we are at our happiest. It is, remember, 
the warm sun that causes the buds to open and give forth 
their perfume. You know what George Macdonald said : 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 129 

" If I can put gladness into the heart of any man or woman, 
I shall feel I have worked with God." 

If Co-Partnership were merely a matter of money-motive— 
a money stimulus— without the putting of gladness and hap- 
piness into the hearts of the staff, then, I say, Co-Partnership 
would be a gloomy failure. The employee has a right to 
happiness and freedom from anxiety. Remember, that what- 
ever attitude is adopted towards the staff will react upon 
the employer himself, as well as on his business. We must 
begin to realize the fact that a large part of the employee's 
ability is never awakened because it has never been energized 
or utilized. We all of us know those who have been in 
business with us at various times and whom we considered 
of no special merit as long as they were our assistants, but 
who have developed by leaps and bounds when they have 
got into business for themselves. Why could not we develop 
these latent powers ? 

Now, let us consider the second partner in business— the 
Public. Many think the only use of the public is to make 
profits out of them. You know the man who was boasting 
of his profits during the war in the smoke-room of his club. 
He said, " You know, I have made it all by sheer, downright 
pluck— every penny of it." The worried listener: "And 
whom did you pluck ? " Many a man of business thinks 
price is the only element of success. There are dozens of 
reasons for success besides prices. Customers will go past 
one shop to another, because gracious courtesy, civility, 
efforts to please, reliability on recommendations of quality,' 
aU count for far more than price cutting. Many customers 
would rather trust the trader's recommendation than their 
own power of selection. Remember, the satisfied customer 
not only comes himself but sends others. The assistant 
must be trained in habits of courtesy to the public. A 
multiple shopman spent a great deal of money in sending 
telegrams to every branch manager at each of his shops 
throughout the United Kingdom : " Did you say ' Thank 
you/ to every customer you served to-day ? " He sent 
those telegrams from time to time until he had burnt the 
importance of this fact into their minds. He spent over 
£1,000 on those telegrams, merely asking that question. He 
says it was the best £1,000 investment he ever made in his life 

10 



130 THE SIX-HOUR DAT 

There are hundreds of men who would scorn to tell a lie 
who would let their goods lie for them. They do not hesitate 
to sell shoddy, second-rate goods. None of them would 
dream of cheating or lying. They are conscientiously, and 
not hypocritically, above it. There is no hypocrisy ; but 
in building up a business, if we are dealing in anything other 
than the quality that customers have a right to expect from 
the class of trade we do, then we are, in our business, living 
a He. The grandest advertisement ever written is poor com- 
pared with the reputation for keeping high-class goods and 
giving a true description of them. 

You know the story of the young man who started a fish 
shop, and fitted it up with marble slabs, and tiles on the 
wall ; then he wrote a sign and put it up. There was his 
name on the sign, and then, " Fresh Fish Sold Here." A 
friend came along and admired the shop, and, after looking 
all round said, " Look at your sign." " What's the matter ? " 
he asked. " Why do you say ' Fresh Fish Sold Here ? ' 
You do not need to say ' here/ You are not selling them 
across the way." So the young man painted the word 
" Here " out, and the sign read " Fresh Fish Sold." Another 
friend came and admired the marble slabs and the tiles. 
When he had admired everything he said, " But look at 
your sign. Everybody will know your fish is fresh." He got 
his paint pot and painted out the word " Fresh." So now 
the sign read, " Fish Sold." Another friend came, and when 
he had admired the shop and the slabs and tiles, he too, 
said, " Look at your sign. Why say ' Sold ? ' Nobody 
will think you are giving the fish away." So he took out 
that word also, and now the sign simply read, " So-and-so, 
Fish." Still another friend came, and when he had looked 
all round he said, " Look at your sign." " What's the matter 
with the sign yet ? " asked the young man. " Why say 
' Fish ? ' " was the reply ; "I could smell fish as soon as 
I turned the corner," 

There is a motto that runs, " The deceiver only deceives 
himself." If any of us think that we can make a second-rate 
quality of goods appear equal to the first-rate quality, we 
are only deceiving ourselves. Deceit is a boomerang, and 
if we put ourselves in our customers' place, we shall realize 
the whole position. Nothing will so quickly forfeit confidence 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 131 

as disappointment over quality. People do not like to deal 
with traders they have always to be watching. Millions 
upon millions of pounds sterling of turn-over are done entirely 
and solely on the character and reputation of traders for 
straightforwardness . 

Well, now, what about the third partner, the Trader him- 
self? Many men in business are unable to trust those associated 
with them with any power or authority whatever These 
men can only think in inches, and have only an eye to petty 
cash items, and as long as they themselves can oversee 
everything and attend to all the details themselves thev 
get along all right, but the moment they have to delegate 
to others, they go all to pieces. That is because they do not 
know how to select their staff, and consequently can never 
trust them. With these men, every employee who does not 
exactly please them at the moment is cleared out If the 
employee were to express an opinion upon the business or 
make suggestions, he would be dismissed. With such' an 
employer, the employee must not move hand or foot without 
the employer's approval. Such traders will not recognize 
the fact that no man can attend to all the details of his own 
business, and know every point about even his own one 
business. 

Now, the trader, to be successful, must begin right awav 
by trusting his staff, and until he can trust them— until he 
has trained and educated them so that he knows whether 
he is there or not, that his business is going on as he would 
wish it, and that his customers are being courteously attended 
to, he is not ripe for the consideration of Co-Partnership 
the spirit of which comes a long way after that stage If 
we are suspicious and distrustful of our staff, then our staff 
become suspicious and distrustful of us, for distrust and 
suspicion breed distrust and suspicion. We have to encourage 
our staff. No employee can be at his or her best if always 
conscious that some one is watching in a fault-finding attitude 
of mind. The interest of the employee must be awakened • 
it cannot be forced. 

There is no doubt we all make errors in business ■ buv 
at the wrong time, and fail to sell at the right time ■ and I 
always consider that the business man is more than'a hero 
braver than any man in the trenches, who dare freely acknow- 



132 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

ledge openly before his staff that he has made a mistake, 
and applies the ink eraser to his own mistakes rather than 
continue them. This is the state of mind we have got to 
cultivate, and once it has been cultivated and become a 
habit, there is nothing that will place an employer on a higher 
pedestal with his employee. It sounds a paradox to say 
our very mistakes and failings would raise us with our em- 
ployees and, literally, it would not be so. The man who 
made three mistakes in five actions would never win the 
esteem and respect of his employee ; but, equally, the em- 
ployer who claimed to be able to do right all five times, and 
never acknowledged that now and then even he might make 
a mistake, as well as his staff, would fail to win the esteem 
and real support of his staff. 

Now, the most dangerous period in the business career 
of any tradesman is the time when he begins to feel sure of 
his position. Over-confidence in any one of us is the first 
sign of decay, and we all of us do our best work when we 
are struggling for position. When a man- says to himself, 
" Now, I can take things easier ; I hold the field ; I am 
head and shoulders over all my competitors, and I can afford 
to breathe more freely " — then he is in the greatest danger 
of his life. It is dangerous to run a business on its past 
reputation, for there are too many others pushing forward 
for supremacy all the time. It is astonishing how soon the 
best business goes to pieces when the proprietor begins to 
take it easy. Managing a business is like rolling a stone up 
a hill ; take one's hands off, and down the stone rolls to the 
bottom again. 

Now, I want just to come to the point that this fact brings 
us up to. I am sure you will agree with what I have said 
about the necessity of constant vigilance in business. If 
this were the final word in business, the prospect for our old 
age would be gloomy indeed. Business would mean hard 
labour for life and the agony of seeing our business fade 
away in our old age. But if we take time by the forelock, 
if those bright young fellows who pass through our hands at 
various stages of our career are attracted to' us by sympathy, 
are trained and developed in our business by our watchful 
care, are made partners in our business at the particular 
moment when they have proved themselves worthy of it and 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 133 

of our confidence, then, as our own physical powers grow- 
less their physical strength is growing greater, and the fair 
and just treatment we have dealt out to them wins their 
loyalty and support ; for all through their life they are able 
to say they could never have done better under any circum- 
stances whatever, for even if they went away from the 
business in which they were trained and developed to start 
a business of their own, the increased competition, the heavy 
responsibilities, the difficulties for capital, would not make 
life so well worth living for them as a partnership in the 
firm they were with, a share in the profits that were made, 
and the opportunity to invest their money in the business 
each succeeding year. On this system the employer, as I 
have mentioned, need not be always at the helm. He can 
take his reasonable relief as years get on, and when, finally, 
it comes to the Indian summer of his life, as the sun is de- 
clining, it will leave a golden glow through the skies ; he will 
be surrounded by those whom he has trained and developed 
to look upon him more as a father than an employer. 
Whether they are single units, or tens, or hundreds, or thou- 
sands, however many they may be, their willing hands will 
go forth to build up the business. The business will become 
more than a mere machine to them. It will become a living 
being to be cared for and tended and cultivated as lovingly 
by them as ever by their master in his own young days. 
And so we can see our business extend and grow, and if there 
were nothing else in Co-Partnership than the relief it will 
give to a man when his physical strength declines, I say 
that argument alone — apart from the increased prosperity 
which Co-Partnership, in the experience of those who have 
adopted it, brings ; apart from the fact that when you have 
interested your staff with you in the profits you have applied 
the most just, fair, and powerful stimulus you can to their 
efforts — apart altogether from all that, this one factor alone 
ought to win it adherence. 

Now, as to the particular form of Co-Partnership to be 
adopted It is utterly impossible for any man to decide this 
question other than the man who is going to apply it. As 
I have said, it may not be possible to share profits at all, 
or to have a partner. There are many occupations, such as 
domestic service, in which it is quite impossible ; but in one 



134 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

form or another, either by kind actions and sympafny, con- 
sideration in sickness, and the joy of happiness in health, 
the payment of high wages, or the sharing of profits, a human 
bond of sympathy must go out from the head of the business, 
from the proprietor, right down to the youngest office boy, 
and, that secured, I do not care whether you call it Co- 
partnership, Profit-Sharing, or what you call it, you have 
introduced into business the human element, which will not 
only make the staff working for you happy, but will make 
yourself happy. It is true that a business carried on for 
mere money-grabbing objects, as I ventured to say at the 
beginning, will, in my opinion, fail to realize even the narrow 
ideal of making money ; but carried on upon the broad lines 
of recognition of equal rights to a share of the fruits of the 
industry of every one connected with the business, whoever 
they may be, then the harvest is greater as it is shared with 
others. Then, as the sunset comes along in the skies, the 
owner, instead of shutting down in dark weariness with the 
knowledge that the business must pass into the hands of 
strangers or be closed entirely, and that the physical strength 
of the proprietor is unable to keep up with the energetic 
action of younger men, will see it stronger than ever, and 
have in it an ever-increasing pride. 



APPENDIX 

THE CO-PARTNERSHIP TRUST IN LEVER BROTHERS 

LIMITED 

Founder — Lord Leverhulme 

Lever Brothers Limited began in 1909 to give workers a share 
in the profits. 

Power was at first taken to issue Partnership Certificates up to 
£500,000 nominal value, and this was afterwards increased to 
£1,000,000. 

These Certificates are issued to employees in proportion to wages 
or salary each year. The Management provisionally allot Cer- 
tificates to the Staff, but Co-Partners have the right of appeal 
to a Committee composed jointly of Staff and Managers. The 
system of allotment is based on value of service. The very slacker 
and ne'er-do-weel receives nil, the apathetic from 5 per cent, to 
10 per cent., and the enthusiastic, appreciative, and responsive 
above 10 per cent., with special allotment for special services and 
helpful suggestions. 

The final appeal can be made to the Chairman of the Company 
should any Co-Partner or Employee feel that he has been over- 
looked or unfairly dealt with. 

For the purpose of the Certificate distribution the Staff is 
divided into four classes — Directors, Managers and Foremen, Sales- 
men, General Staff. 

The Co-Partnership extends to both male and female. 

The original minimum age-limit for Co-Partnership was twenty- 
five years, but is now lowered to twenty-two years. 

Originally the Co-Partnership Certificate was only given after 
five years' service ; now it is given after four years' service. 

The Staff sign an application form, containing a pledge in the 
following terms : — 

" To the Trustees of the Partnership Trust in Lever Brothers 
Limited. 
" Gentlemen, — I, the undersigned, request that a Part- 
nership Certificate be issued to me under the above Trust, 

136 



136 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

and I undertake that if the issue is made I will in all 
respects abide by, and conform to, the provisions of the Trust 
Deed and the Scheme scheduled to it, and will not waste time, 
labour, materials, or money in the discharge of my duties, 
but will loyally and faithfully further the interests of Lever 
Brothers Limited, its Associated Companies, and my Co- 
Partners, to the best of my skill and ability, and I hand you 
herewith a statement in writing of the grounds upon which 
I base this application." 

Once admitted, and so long as their record is clean, Co-Partners 
receive further Certificates each year on above basis in proportion 
to wages or salary, until they have reached their maximum holding, 
which ranges from £200 to £3,000, according to their annual 
earnings. 

They receive dividends on the amounts of their accumulated 
Certificates like Ordinary Shareholders, but as the Certificates 
contribute no Capital to the business, they receive on that account 
5 per cent, less than is paid on Ordinary Shares. 

The dividends are paid in 5 per cent. Cumulative " A " Preferred 
Ordinary Shares, which the holder can sell at any time for cash 
at par value if he so desires ; but so long as the shares are held 
by the Co-Partner to whom they were originally allotted they also 
participate further in profits to the extent that they yield to him 
the same rate of interest as that enjoyed by the Ordinary Share- 
holder. 

These 5 per cent. Cumulative " A " Preferred Ordinary Shares 
can only be allotted as dividends in lieu of cash. 

Co-Partnership couples up Loss-Sharing with Profit-Sharing. 
If a man has acquired Co-Partnership Certificates, and if profits 
were to cease to be earned, he would suffer equally with Capital 
in loss of dividends. 

When an employee retires from active work in the service of 
the firm, his Partnership Certificates are cancelled, but if his retire 
ment is due to ill-health or old-age, or if his services are dispensed 
with through no fault of his own, he receives in exchange Prefer- 
ential Certificates which bear interest at 5 per cent, on their nominal 
par value and are a charge on the profits ranking next after the 
first 5 per cent, taken by the Ordinary Shareholders. 

The nominal amount of a Preferential Certificate is either ten 
times the average dividends paid in respect of the former Director's 
or Employee's Partnership Certificates during the three preceding 
years, or the same nominal amount as that of the Partnership 
Certificate so exchanged, whichever shall be the lesser. 

The granting of these Certificates does not in any way interfere 



CO-PARTNERSHIP 137 

with the old age pensions under Lever Brothers' Employees 
Benefit Fund. 

So long as an employee is in the active service of the firm he 
cannot (except for flagrant inefficiency or misconduct) be deprived 
of the Partnership Certificates already issued to him, and the 
annual interest which may be payable on those Certificates. The 
conditions can only be varied by the consent of the holders of 
not less than three-fourths of the total nominal amount of the 
Certificates issued. 

Both Partnership and Preferential Certificates are cancelled by 
the death of the owner unless a widow is left. But a widow receives 
Preferential Certificates in exchange for her late husband's Partner- 
ship Certificates, or if he had retired and was holding Preferential 
Certificates, these are transferred to her, and she is entitled to 
hold them, subject to the conditions of the Trust, while she remains 
a widow. 

On January i, 1918, the nominal value of the Partnership Cer- 
tificates, Ordinary and Preferential, issued and outstanding, was 

At the same date the number of Employee Partners, including 
employees of Associated Companies admitted to Co-Partnership, 
was 5,066. 

In the nine completed years of the Co-Partnership there has 
been distributed, for the benefit of the employees, in Co-Partnership 
Dividends, and in Prosperity-Sharing generally, £487,353. 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 



I 

UNDERCURRENTS OF HOUSING, 
CAPITAL, AND LABOUR 

Carlisle, November 5, 1917. 

[In view of the important developments taking place at Carlisle 
— its transition from an old-world cathedral city*to a centre 
of industrial progress, the establishment of munition works 
expected to be the largest in the world, and the carrying-out 
of a valuable experiment in the control of the liquor traffic 
— Lord Leverhulme evidently felt that the topics on which 
he spoke at the invitation of the Carlisle Chamber of Commerce 
were appropriate to the place and the time. He recollected 
also that he was in the neighbourhood of Gretna — the scene 
of so many romantic marriages — and, thus prompted, he 
gave new expression to his hopes of social welfare : " What 
better love-match could there be than one between producer 
and consumer, both interdependent ? " He went on to say :] 

Our first great task is to win this war. We are winning. 
The final victory which is bound to come may be a little 
delayed from the events of the past few months, but it can- 
not be withheld. Victory is bound to come to the cause of 
right against the brute force of mere might. 

It would be a world scandal if a democratic people who 
could organize to win victory on the battlefield found itself 
unable to organize for better conditions of life as the fruits 
of that complete victory. The great stumbling-block to our 
progress is our tendency here to follow precedent. The 
progress of the world has gone on in spite of our British 
reluctance to take new departures. I am sure you will agree 
with me that the progress in science and knowledge of the 
secrets of nature that we have gained from the days of Sir 
Isaac Newton to the present time is infinitely greater than 
it was from the time of Adam to Sir Isaac Newton. 

141 



142 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

So great and so rapid have been the changes in the last 
fifty years, that we may say we have gained more in that 
time than from the time of Adam to Sir Isaac Newton. All 
the immense possibilities of this progress have been achieved 
be persistent hard work on the lines of individualism, and 
in spite of the opposition of Governments. In fact, during 
the centuries we have spoken of, Governments have perse- 
cuted the men of science — have burned them at the stake, 
and applied the thumb-screws of the torture chamber to 
them ; but, in spite of the opposition of Government, science 
has progressed. 

The British Empire, as we know it now, has not been the 
product of the British Government, but exists as the product 
of individuals in spite of Government and Colonial and 
Foreign Offices. We should never get much out of Parlia- 
ment. The reason is clear. The province of Government 
is not to do things for us, but to govern so as to ensure each 
citizen equality of rights, equality of opportunities, and 
equality of protection under the laws. Our limited monarchy 
is the best form of government in the world, and, compared 
with the United States or France or elsewhere, the best form 
of democratic control in the world to-day. 

My strong faith in democracy is founded on the fact that 
the citizens will themselves feel the pinch when their own 
errors produce ill effects. But we must take heed now of 
undercurrents. Just as our airmen flying through the air 
encounter currents of which we did not know — pockets, I 
think, they call them, which they have to learn and study 
before they can conquer the means of flying — so it is in our 
ideals and dreams of betterment. When the Franchise Bill 
of 1869 was passed we were told we must educate our masters, 
and our education has resulted in teaching the people to 
look to Parliament to give them anything and everything — 
to be to them a sort of Universal Provider. We have, 
apparently, taught our citizens to expect to get from Parlia- 
ment by vote what citizens ought to obtain for themselves 
by work. Everything is to be provided by Government 

Now we come to touch the problem of the shortage— 
the alarming shortage — of houses. We know that something 
must be done, and it is natural that, by this process of educa- 
tion, people should look to Parliament to give them free or 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 143 

semi-free houses. Now, this is not the democratic control of 
free men, but nursery rule. We must get rid of the idea 
that we can get something for nothing. It is a delusion. 

What are the reasons for the shortage of cottages ? There 
must be some reason. Hitherto 98 per cent, of the cottages 
provided have been built by private enterprise. The total 
number of cottages built by private enterprise in ten years, 
from 1900 to 1909, was 1,100,000. As long as Great Britain 
has existed all cottage houses have been built by private 
enterprise. The speculative builder may have his faults, but, 
on the whole, he has cheaply and well provided, at his own 
capital cost, for the housing of the people, the landlord 
financing the builder who leased his land. 

W T hy has this private enterprise come to an end ? What 
is the cause of the present shortage of cottages ? The cause 
is the shaking of confidence in the security of any invest- 
ment in cottage building, and in this form of business enter- 
prise. The talk of Government providing houses on some 
basis of assistance out of the general taxes of the country 
to provide what has hitherto been provided by private enter- 
prise has shaken confidence. The depreciation in the selling 
value of cottage property in the last eight years has approxi- 
mated to an aggregate of £200,000,000 sterling. 

After shaking the confidence of those who previously 
provided the building of cottages by raising the expectation 
of Government help being given to others to build further 
cottages, there came the war, the calling-up of all men of 
military age and in fit condition to serve in the Army. Then, 
after the outbreak of war, an Act was passed preventing 
the owners of cottages from raising their rents and the owners 
of mortgages from raising the interest on mortgages. We 
all of us, myself included, allowed that this was the right 
step to take. Then meetings were held in approval of the 
Act, and it was endorsed unanimously by those who attended 
the meetings. 

But here, again, we have an imder current, because the 
Act promptly stopped all building of further cottages and 
the loan of money on cottage property. The builders could 
not build because the rents of existing cottages were not 
advanced to meet the increased cost of repairs and renewals. 
Building of new houses could not proceed because it was no* 



144 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

an attractive investment, apart from the difficulties of finance 
caused by the calling in of mortgages, and the impossibility 
of replacing them except on an increased margin. This has 
brought in its train loss and ruin to owners, who have been 
compelled to realize on forced sales at an enormous loss. 
Mortgages could not be raised on new cottage property, and 
banking facilities are extremely limited. Capital was attracted 
to other and more lucrative channels. This led to widespread 
loss, and many owners of cottage property and builders could 
not go on, and in a great many cases the owners of property 
were ruined. Every owner of cottages, notwithstanding the 
increased cost of building, is a keen seller at less than the 
present cost of building. 

I do not think we have a corresponding case in the whole 
of the United Kingdom in any other form of investment. 
These cottages could not be replaced at anything like their 
pre-war value, and yet owners are keen sellers at less than 
the cost. No such conditions exist in any other investments. 
Small wonder that builders ceased to build cottages, or that 
landowners have ceased to develop their estates. There is 
less wonder that to-day we have a house famine. 

The fact is that 80 per cent, of the houses in Great Britain 
are let at rentals of from is. to 7s. o,d. per week, including 
rates and taxes, and on these rentals, obviously, there is no 
margin for profitable investment. Long before the war the 
house famine existed, and cottage building had practically 
ceased. Taking the country as a whole, it is doubtful if 
more than half the number of these cottages were being built 
each year even before the war since 1909 as in or prior to 1909. 

How has it been proposed to deal with this situation ? 
Meetings are being held at which resolutions are being passed 
to the effect that " private enterprise cannot now be depended 
upon " to make good the shortage. So that fact has been 
grasped by all of us. Private enterprise can no longer be 
depended upon to make good the shortage. 

Resolutions follow to the effect that " the local authority 
shall recognize and fulfil the duty of providing decent housing 
accommodation for those unable to pay an, economic rent, 
and that the Government shall provide the difference between 
the rentals of such cottages and the rentals the proposed 
tenants can afford to pay." 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 145 

These resolutions are very vague as to how this is to be 
carried out — whether a sum of money is to be paid to a 
public body, or private builder, to make up the difference in 
the rent proposed to be received and the rent which is actually 
required to pay interest and repairs and sinking fund. All 
is left perfectly vague. The very common form is to suggest 
that the Government should grant money for the building 
of cottages at the pre-war rate of 3 per cent., whilst it has 
to borrow at the present rate of 5J per cent. 

But what group of citizens would be induced to provide 
the margin required to secure the Government advance, the 
rents being arbitrarily fixed on some assumed basis of cost 
that is certain to be exceeded ? The margin required would 
be at least 20 per cent., and that margin would disappear 
with bad trade in the country and the falling empty of the 
cottages built in a time of commercial prosperity. Would 
our Town Councils be justified in providing this margin and 
leaving the ratepayers to stand the loss ? Would private 
individuals be able to ask the banks to lend money on that 
margin ; or would a man be entitled to take the savings of 
his lifetime — what he intended to keep the hunger-wolf from 
his widow and children — into that margin which would be 
necessary to entitle him to the advance of the Government 
even after receiving money at 3 per cent, which has cost 
the Government 5| per cent. ? 

I do not think the scheme would be attractive to indi- 
viduals or municipalities, and it certainly would not be 
attractive to the Imperial taxpayer. I would suggest that 
all these methods ought to receive fuller and more serious 
consideration than they have received up to now. They 
are undercurrents, and one does not know whether they will 
draw us closer to our ideals or whether they may carry us 
on to rocks or shoals. They might easily make the housing 
conditions infinitely worse twenty years hence than they are 
to-day. 

I would like to suggest one or two alternative methods, 
with your permission ; and, first of all, steps should be taken 
to restore public confidence in the building of cottages and 
in money invested in land and house property. Then let 
the towns and cities purchase the land on the fringe of their 
towns at agricultural value. They could do it wisely and 

11 



146 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

judiciously, awaiting the right opportunity when such land 
comes into the market. This can be done if taken in time. 
I have known land within seven miles of the Marble Arch, 
in London, to sell for £50 per acre. When that land came 
to be developed for building purposes, if the municipal 
authorities of the group of boroughs in the City had purchased 
that estate, they would have provided ample opportunity 
for housing the people. 

The towns should secure the land on the fringe of the 
suburban area and prepare a comprehensive town-planning 
scheme, embracing not only the suburbs but the centre of 
the town, and so providing areas for industries, manu- 
factories, garden villages for workmen, residential areas, and 
central shopping districts. Then let the land be valued on 
the basis of cost — the actual cost the municipality would 
have to pay with the sinking fund to provide for time occupied 
in development over a number of years — sixty or seventy 
would not be an unreasonably long period. Then sell this 
land on this basis of cost in various allotted areas, each area 
valued on its own, a lower price for garden village sites, a 
higher price for factory sites, and a higher price still for shop 
sites. The garden village sites should be on a basis of not 
more than eight to ten cottages per acre. 

Having done that, the next step I want to suggest is much 
sounder, and likely to prove more profitable to the country 
as a permanent remedy for the shortage of houses than 
assistance out of the Imperial Exchequer. The towns and 
cities should, as I advocate, acquire the land on the fringe 
of the suburbs, and then they should get rid of all rates and 
taxes on improvements of land and cottage houses, and 
substitute a local income tax. The difference between such 
a tax and the incidence of taxation on improvements is this : 
You practically say to the builder of a cottage, " Whether 
it pays you or it does not pay you, we will take an annual 
sum from you in the form of rates and taxes." We agree, 
do we not, that you cannot tax except on income ? However 
you make an income tax or a super- tax, it is a tax on the 
individual and his wealth in the shape of income. 

If we substitute a local income tax and raise our revenue 
clear of rates from cottages, then you stimulate the building 
of more and better cottages. The man who builds the best 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 147 

type of house to-day knows that he is going to be penalized 
by being rated at a higher value. 

I have an instance in my mind which occurred only a few 
months ago. A farmer on some land I owned, when I went 
to see him, wanted some improvement made. His water 
supply was an old well. I said to him that I was willing 
to put all these matters right, to build additional shippons 
for extra cows, and better accommodation for his horses, 
and I suggested that I should bring a supply of the town's 
water, which ran past on the main road, for use on the farm 
instead of relying on the old well. Both he and his wife 
talked it over. I told him it would mean an additional 
rental charge of 4 per cent, on the cost of the work. They 
thought they could well undertake and afford to give the 
increased rent for the increased accommodation to be provided. 
They were delighted at the idea of having the water supply, 
but within a week I got a letter in which the farmer wrote 
that he had thought over the matter, and had discovered 
that his rates would be increased by so much, and so much 
more for water, that he preferred to go on as he was 
doing. 

The whole stumbling-block to the improvement of property 
has always been the rates. Even if you put up a little green- 
house, properly built with brick foundations, it is a subject 
for increased rates. 

Abolish the rates and you would accomplish two objects. 
You would restore confidence and attract capital for building, 
provided there was cheap land. We do not want these 
advantages to go to the owners of the land. The land on 
the fringe of our towns should be purchased at agricultural 
value for the community. 

Having gone so far, there should be an alteration in the 
building by-laws to cheapen the cost of road-making 
Sufficient land should be reserved for wide roads, but the 
actual roadway need not be so great until the building of 
houses had developed. It only burdens those who have to 
develop the land. Building by-laws require to be altered 
so that we can build what I call machine-made houses — 
machine-made cottages. 

They can be made of reinforced concrete on many systems. 
Edison suggested moulds into which the cement is poured, 



148 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

and when it hardens the moulds are removed. There is a 
better system proposed to be adopted in many districts. 
It is a much sounder system of making cottages, and is known 
as the panel system. These panels can be prepared and 
set in any central factory where gravel and sand are available, 
and the panels can be transported, and can be assembled 
and erected perfectly dry, and in a week or ten days the 
cottage can be completed and ready for occupation. 

The building by-laws are our obstacle — the greatest hin- 
drance in addition to those others I have mentioned. Under 
existing by-laws the manufacture of machine-made cottages 
on the factory system is impossible. 

These clothes I am wearing would, a few centuries ago, 
have been made by hand. We marvel at the cheapness of 
cloth and its varied patterns. Perhaps a whole factory may 
be running all the time on one pattern, but go where you 
will about the town, you never find dull repetition of the 
same pattern. The patterns are infinitely varied. So there 
can be in the building of cottages, on the panel system, an 
infinite variety of design, and the work done on the sites 
can be reduced to a minimum. The cottages could be let 
at very much lower rentals than at present without nursery 
rule or help from Governments ; all of which would, I con- 
tend, produce a state of affairs twenty years hence infinitely 
more disastrous than what we are suffering from to-day. 

There are other phases of this subject, but I would like, 
with your permission, to pass from the question of housing 
to the question of the relation between what is called Capital 
and Labour, or the employer and the employee. 

Let us consider this most carefully, as there are under- 
currents in connection therewith. Just as we have seen that 
the action of the Government in limiting rentals to be paid 
for cottages may be perfectly right in time of war, but may 
come back as a boomerang upon those who want cottages . 
to live in, so let us be careful that we try to see, as far as 
human foresight will avail us, the effect of any proposal in 
reference to employer and employee. 

A cynic has said that the keynote of all difficulties is im- 
becility. The greatest of our industrial imbecilities to-day 
are suspicion and distrust. Employers and employees both 
distrust each other. The trade unionist is suspicious and 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 149 

distrustful of his union and his leaders. Parliament and 
people distrust the Government, and so it goes on. 

There are no fools in this world, believe me, like the shrewd 
fools. This so-called shrewdness is merely another word for 
suspicion and distrust. Suspicion and distrust bring the 
worst, not the best, out of us. We have seen the effect of 
the creation of a spirit of lack of confidence in producing 
a shortage of houses, and the consequent sufferings of the 
people. We are now on the brink of an equally serious 
industrial situation. The present war taxation is heavy, but 
war conditions justify it, and we are fortunate in being able 
to put on the statute book the taxation we have in operation 
to-day. 

Napoleon said, when asked what was the greatest essential 
for war, " Money " ; what was the next greatest essential ? 
" More money " ; and what was the greatest essential of all ? 
M Most money." 

We are very fortunate in having available this system of 
taxation, but when the war is over it is quite clear that much 
of the present high taxation must continue. Don't let us 
make an error and produce lack of confidence in putting 
capital into industries, or harass industry and drive capital 
away. We are tending rapidly in this direction by the excess- 
profits tax, which is a tax, not on the individual, but on the 
industry. It is thought to be a tax on the individual, but 
it is not. It is a tax on industries. Obviously, in war-time 
and for war necessities, we must have this whether it is a 
curse or a blessing. We have no alternative. We are forced 
to raise money to meet current expenses as far as we can 
out of income. But we shall be wise if we consider the effect 
of this so-called excess- profits tax in shaking the confidence 
of capital in industries, and especially its effect on the wage- 
earners. 

Income tax and super-tax, however high they may be, 
are on the individual — on the income of the individual ; and 
so are the death duties, however high they may be graduated, 
on the wealth of individuals. But the excess-profits tax is 
not the same. The position is just as if the Government 
were to say to any one embarking in an industry, " Heads 
I win, tails you lose." It is true that in new industries the 
Government say they will allow 6 per cent, on capital for 



150 THE SIX-HOUR, DAY 

profits before they calculate excess profits. What has induced 
money to flow into new industries in the past has been the 
knowledge that if the money was lost it was a fair loss, because 
if money was made it went to the people who took the risk 
and put their capital into the business, and stood to make 
or lose money. It was a fair risk, whether it was in ship- 
building, without certainty as to the conditions which would 
prevail when the ships were launched, or in whatever form 
of industry capital flowed to. 

But in the excess-profits tax the Government says, " You 
must take the risk. If you make a profit, we take 80 per cent, 
of it, and you can have 20 per cent. If you make a loss, 
you take the whole of the loss." 

As soon as the war is over we shall require to have money 
flowing into new industries to provide employment for the 
men who return from the front, and to extend our export 
trade, and generally to bring us victory in the field of 
commerce, as we shall have won victory on the field of 
battle. 

Do any of us realize how little the profits of capital in 
industry are, and how great is the gain to labour of attracting 
ample capital to industries ? In countries such as the United 
States, where capital is more free and plentiful, wages are 
highest. Capital seeks investment in plant and machinery, 
and because of that investment pays higher wages. Where 
horse-power and machinery is the greatest, there wages are 
the highest per head of the people. Each machine we possess 
is a storage battery for brains and a producer of wealth. 
The pre-war figure of productive capital in the United Kingdom 
invested in plant and machinery was five times that of Italy 
and Spain, twelve times that of China and Japan, and two 
and a half times that of all Europe, including in that France, 
Germany, Russia, and all other European countries. 

In the United Kingdom, however, labour was only 4 per 
cent, as compared with the productive power represented by 
both labour and machinery. That is to say, labour was 
4 per cent, and machinery 96 per cent.; in Spain, labour 
was 24 per cent, and machinery 76 per cent. ; in Italy, labour 
34 per cent, and machinery 66 per cent., and in Portugal, 
labour 42 per cent, and machinery 58 per cent. And the wages 
paid the wage-earner were proportionately highest in the 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 151 

United Kingdom. All wage-earners, and those receiving small 
salaries, are inclined to exaggerate the profits on capital. 

Let us take the income tax returns for the last pre-war 
year, 1913-14, or one that includes a few months of the war. 
The returns for income tax show that the profits on business, 
professions, and salaries of same were £504 \ millions sterling. 
Now we can with confidence deduct, say, one- third from this 
for professions and salaries, leaving, say, £330,000,000 as 
profits of trade. We can be certain we have not over de- 
ducted, because the return for the salaries of Government 
and Corporation and other officials amounts to £76,250,000, 
and we may reasonably have confidence that salaries paid 
in business and incomes of doctors, solicitors, architects, and 
all professional men added together cannot be less than 
£174,000,000. Now this £330,000,000 is equal to 4^d. per 
head per day for every man, woman, and child in the United 
Kingdom. The income derived from land and houses for 
the years 1913-14 was £165,500,000, which is 2jd. per head 
per day. The excess profits were estimated to produce for 
1916-17 about £75,000,000, but we will say £200,000,000, 
which is again 3d. per head per day for each man, woman, 
and child. The total is thus 9§d. per head per day, and if 
we add retained by capital, say, £165,000,000 for the fullest 
excess-profit tax — the rate of taxation was 50, then 60, and 
then 80 per cent. — so we may take it at £165,000,000, or 
2jd. per head per day for every man, woman, and child in 
the United Kingdom. That makes a grand total of is. per 
head per day for every man, woman, and child in the United 
Kingdom. 

But, in calculating, one must remember that only three 
out of every five are workers. Then, upon that calculation, 
it comes to is. 8d. per head per day for each worker. 

During that same period wages have advanced over 2s. 6d. 
per worker per day on the average for the United Kingdom 
since the war ; in many industries 5s., and in certain industries 
by as much as 10s. per day. Profits, therefore, are not large 
when considered from the point of view of what would be 
available for distribution, if equal division were an ideal 
that would help the cause of progress. 

If any system of conscription or exactly equal division 
would produce most goods, highest wages, and most houses, 



152 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

then I venture to think there is no right-thinking man in the 
United Kingdom who would not be out to advocate what 
would produce the greatest good to the greatest number. 

Yes, but it is said, " Let us conscript all wealth." 

Now, it may be thought by some that this is an ideal that 
would help. Let us see whose wealth we would conscript. 
I was speaking to a Trade Unionist on this subject, and 
he referred me to another man, with whom he had been 
arguing this question. 

" Tom," he said, " you have never saved anything. You 
spend all you receive, and you have always made more thar 
I have. Here, I have managed to save £500. You would 
not save, and do you think it would be fair to take my £500 
when you have no £500 to be taken ? " 

The spendthrift workman and the prodigal son of the 
merchant would have no wealth to conscript. Do we want 
to penalize and discourage thrift, to encourage the spend- 
thrift and wastrel, or to encourage the workman or the son 
of the manufacturer who works hard to endeavour to main- 
tain the position of his father's industry " in the world of 
commerce ? Some say that whilst it might be a mistake to 
conscript all wealth, we could conscript incomes by making 
the income tax so high that it would come to the same 
result. But if we conscript the total income, who will produce 
any income ? Where will there be found any incomes to 
conscript under such circumstances ? 

I would point out that wages are highest and living most 
full where the accumulated wealth of the thrifty and the 
careful is the greatest. Discourage the production of wealth 
and you will make goods dearer, and wages lower, and employ- 
ment scarce. And if you do discourage it, what about the 
widow, the retired schoolmaster or tradesman ? Believe me, 
any idea of increasing the welfare of the workers or of the 
community in that direction is a delusion. You cannot 
improve the condition of any people by any schenre of con- 
fiscation of capital or income, or by any scheme of redistribu- 
tion. You can only increase wealth by increasing production. 
You can only increase wages by increased investment of capital 
in machinery, resulting in increased production and reduced 
cost. You can only increase production on the basis of 
increased consumption. 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 153 

There would not be in the Congo, where I travelled some 
time ago, any increased production, because there is no in- 
creased consumption. The way to make people increase 
consumption is by increasing leisure. Increases of consump- 
tion also depend on increases in wages and reduced costs, 
so that wages are not only larger in coin, but in purchasing 
power. All this means the raising of the standard of living 
on sound and healthy lines. Therefore our raising of the 
standard of national life and of the whole British Empire 
depends upon better organization of our industries, resulting 
in the shortening of the hours of labour ; increased production 
by the employment of more capital in machinery ; cheapen- 
ing of the cost of product, increased leisure, and resulting 
increased power of consumption. Therefore, I advocate one 
step in this direction — the Six-Hour Working Day. 

The Six-Hour Workiag Day has an intimate bearing on 
these ideals. It does not mean a loafer's paradise. Its effect 
on the cost of continuous running of machinery is where 
we shall gain. Our machinery will run an increasing number 
of hours, even to the total of twenty-four hours, while the 
human being attending the machine is not running more 
than six-hour shifts. We shall largely increase our power 
of production and of employment. 

And what must be our final aim to avoid all misunder- 
standings and secure the greatest well-being of all ? Co- 
partnership. The user of the tools must own the tools. 
That must be our final ideal. We cannot take one spring 
toward that ideal. We can only move cautiously and slowly. 
You cannot take a man straight from the Liverpool Docks 
and put him on the Board of Directors of the Cunard 
Steamship Company ; but if we have the ideal, then in time, 
with the operation of the Six-Hour Day, we shall produce 
men and women in this country as a race who will not look 
upon manual labour as we have in the past been too apt to 
do, but will rather look down upon the man who does not 
work to support himself and his family, though he is able to 
live without working. The time will come when it will be 
a disgrace to be a non-worker. 

Under this system the workers in industries of all kinds 
can take their proper and larger share in the business affairs 
of the nation, in improving the conditions of employment, 



154 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

in meeting new developments, and so on. In the looms in 
your chairman's factory you will see a number of coloured 
threads. With skill and dexterity you will see all those 
colours worked into the texture and united in a piece 
of cloth of beautiful pattern. If one single thread breaks, 
the pattern is marred. We can organize for service in the 
industrial life all elements in the United Kingdom — the 
professional man down to the errand boy — by proper 
apportionment of our time and proper education. And 
by all citizens working on these lines we can produce a 
pattern such as the world has never known. We can 
produce an empire which will endure for ever, and one that 
will be the pride of, and work for the betterment of, the 
whole civilized world. 



II 
LAND FOR HOUSES 

Birkenhead, October 4, 1898. 

[In the following address (delivered to the North End Liberal 
Club), Mr. Lever, as he then was, advocated a policy of " Free 
land for housing," and defended it as neither unfair to any 
one nor revolutionary.] 

The subject " Land for Houses " is one the importance of 
which requires no words of mine to commend itself to your 
earnest consideration. The few thoughts I venture to place 
before you on this great subject are very crude and incomplete, 
and, consequently, are no doubt open to much adverse criti- 
cism. But, happily, honest criticism can only lead in one 
direction, that of further calling attention to the question 
of housing the people, with a view to whatever may be the 
best means of remedying the defects of our present system ; 
a system under which the housing of the people has become 
a scandal and disgrace, as well as a danger to the physical 
and moral well-being of the nation. It is impossible for us 
to visit any of our thickly populated centres without feeling 
that, however great strides we have made in political economy 
during the present century, as far as housing of the people is 
concerned we are probably in as bad a condition to-day as 
at any period of our history ; and this notwithstanding the 
fact that as far back as 185 1 two Acts for dealing with this 
question were passed by Parliament, and also that since 
then, at constantly recurring intervals, right down to the 
Act of 1890, succeeding Parliaments have repeatedly attempted 
to deal with this subject. Except in the way of police control, 
we are bound to admit that none of these Acts have really 
been effective in dealing with the evils they were intended 
to remedy. 
Before I proceed further, allow me to acknowledge the 

168 



156 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

assistance I have had in preparing this paper from reading 
the book by Mr. Bowmaker on Housing of the Working 
Classes, also the works by Mr. Charles Booth on the Labour 
and Life of the People, and various other writers. All who 
have carefully read the works of the leading writers on this 
subject must be impressed with the extreme gravity of the 
present situation, and the more one inquires into the question 
of the housing of the people, the more one is impressed with 
two things — the enormous amount of work required to be 
done, and the great importance that it should be done with 
as little delay as possible. As to the amount of work to be 
done, it is not only the grosser forms of overcrowding — the 
slums and alleys — that require to be dealt with, but almost 
of equal importance is the question of the crowding of houses 
side by side with only 12 feet or 15 feet frontage, small yards, 
and 6 or 8 feet back roads. It is said that " God made 
the country, and man made the towns." But there can be 
no reason why man should not make towns livable and 
healthy, and if towns are made livable and healthy they will 
be just as much subject to the beneficent influence of bright 
sunshine, fresh air, flowers, and plants, as the country. But 
just as surely as the country is made by God, so surely is it 
that man is made also by the same Creator — who constituted 
him a social being, loving the fellowship of his fellow-man, 
and therefore loving to live in towns and cities, where he 
finds the greatest scope for his social instincts, and where his 
genius and abilities have the fullest opportunities for develop- 
ment. Therefore, it is an established fact, and one that all 
past history of the human race confirms, that men prefer 
city life to country life ; hence the great importance to the 
well-being of the race that city life be carried on under proper 
conditions as to housing, with a view to securing surroundings 
the most favourable to health. It is for the citizens them- 
selves as a body to control this matter through their municipal 
organizations. It must not be left to individuals, as in the past. 
We are too apt in this country to leave good work for 
the benefit of one's fellow-men to the care of philanthropists, 
but in this instance, owing to the very stupendous character 
of the question of housing of the people, philanthropists have 
practically been unable to effect anything, notwithstanding 
the large sum of money devoted by men of the stamp of 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 157 

Mr. Peabody, and others too numerous to mention. I venture 
to submit that it is not a matter to be dealt with by philan- 
thropists at all. Philanthropy is only another name for 
charity, and charity can only mean pauperism. The housing 
of the people is not in any way connected with pauperism nor 
charity, and does not come within the scope of philanthropists. 
We have experienced during the last forty or fifty years 
that mere Acts of Parliament can effect very little. In 
what direction, then, must we look for help to come ? 
Before we can answer this question, it would be, perhaps, 
of advantage for us to inquire into the extent to which the 
grosser forms of overcrowding exist, and what are the effects 
on health and character of overcrowding. As to the extent 
of overcrowding, many who have not thought deeply on the 
subject would be surprised to hear that it exists to just as 
great an extent in villages as in large towns, and in the very 
smallest hamlets, proportionately, to as large an extent as 
in London ; that it exists in new towns and cities like Birken- 
head, as well as in the oldest city in the United Kingdom. 
We find by the last census returns that throughout the whole 
of England and Wales, of the number of rooms composing 
tenement houses, 52 per cent, of the separate tenements 
included four rooms or less, of which about 5 per cent, were 
of one room only, n per cent, of two rooms, 12 per cent, of 
three rooms, and 24 per cent, of four rooms. Taking London 
separately, we find that, instead of 52 per cent, as in the case 
of England and Wales, tenements of four rooms and under 
are 67 per cent., and that the single-room tenements in London 
amount to 18 per cent., as compared with the 5 per cent, 
for the whole country. Now, if we consider for one moment 
the life a family must lead who have only one room in which 
to eat, to sleep, and to live, we cannot wonder at the social 
degradation produced in those who live under these con- 
ditions ; and yet, the rents paid for these single rooms are 
sufficient to pay a reasonable return on the capital required, 
if properly expended, to provide suitable accommodation. In 
the worst parts of Liverpool at the present day 1,000 people 
are huddled on the space of one acre. At an inquest in 
Spitalfields, London, concerning the death of a child four 
months old, the evidence showed that the child, with six 
other children and its parents, had lived in a room 12 feet 



158 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

by 12 feet, for which 4s. 6d. a week rent was paid. Just 
fancy nine human beings living under such conditions as 
these ! All such places must prove very hotbeds of vice 
and misery. I could give thousands of other examples taken 
from both town, city, and country, but I will give one instance 
more only to prove that overcrowding is just as prevalent 
in country districts as in towns. In a village, not many miles 
from here, I was asked by a widow, shortly after the property 
came into my possession, to provide another bedroom to her 
cottage. On my asking why, she replied because her son 
was growing up, and there was only one room for herself 
and him to sleep in. I imagined, of course, that he would 
be a little boy, say eight or nine years of age. I asked his 
age, and found it was nearly twenty. This caused me to 
make further inquiries, which revealed the fact that this was 
only a specimen of the conditions under which many of the 
inhabitants of that village were living. We drive or walk 
past ivy-clad cottages in the country, admire their beauty, 
and the thought that there can be fully-grown men and women, 
not always even brothers and sisters, forced to occupy the 
same bedroom from the lack of proper housing accommodation 
never presents itself to us. The words used by the late Lord 
Shaftesbury before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire 
into the subject of overcrowding are just as true to-day as 
they were at the time they were uttered. Lord Shaftesbury 
then declared that, however great had been the improvement 
in the condition of the poor in other respects, overcrowding 
had become more serious than ever it was before. Evidence 
produced before various Royal Commissions who have ex- 
amined witnesses on the subject all proves that an enormous 
proportion of our village populations know no other home 
than such as provide one room for the whole family to live 
in, and another room for the whole family to sleep in. 

It is not necessary for me to occupy your time in prov- 
ing further that overcrowding does exist. You know it 
exists. I know it exists, we all know it exists, apart 
from Government returns and population statistics or 
Blue-books. We know it because we see it, and read 
about it in the police reports every day of our lives. Such, 
then, being admitted to be the state of affairs, let us next 
inquire what are the results which overcrowding produces. 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 159 

There is one result which it certainly ought not to produce 
in ourselves, and that is indifference on our part to the nameless 
misery and brutalization which overcrowding generates in the 
poor. And sometimes one is inclined to think that, whilst 
on all hands we have evident signs that the condition of the 
poor calls forth greater sympathy to-day than ever, and 
whilst we know that in the providing of hospitals and in- 
firmaries, in temperance work, religious and social work, we 
have not been unmindful of our duty, yet in the very question 
which lies at the root of the uplifting of the people, and the 
elevation of them to a full enjoyment of all the possibilities 
of life, we have grossly neglected our duty. In dealing with 
the moral effect of overcrowding, it is not an easy task to 
collect statistics. We know that overcrowding and degrada- 
tion go together, but we do not clearly see whether it is the 
degraded who prefer to herd together, or it is the overcrowd- 
ing that produces the degradation ; but whatever our indi- 
vidual views may be on this point, we shall all agree on one 
point, namely, that as to the degradation of the children 
there cannot be the slightest difference of opinion. Lord 
Shaftesbury, speaking of the effect of overcrowding on children, 
describes it as " totally destructive of all benefits from educa- 
tion " ; and who can wonder that this is the effect produced ? 
A child that knows nothing of God's earth, of green fields, 
or sparkling brooks, of breezy hill and springy heather, and 
whose mind is stored with none of the beauties of nature, 
but knows only the drunkenness prevalent in the hideous 
slum it is forced to five in, and whose walks abroad have 
never extended beyond the corner public-house and the 
pawnshop, cannot be benefited by education. Such children 
grow up depraved, and become a danger and terror to the 
State ; wealth-destroyers instead of wealth-producers, com- 
pared to whom the South Sea Islander, the Maori, or Zulu 
is an educated, intelligent citizen. 

That overcrowding produces drunkenness, vice, misery, 
and wretchedness, we know, notwithstanding we cannot 
easily collect statistics showing the exact extent to which 
the moral nature is affected by overcrowding. But if we 
cannot get statistics with regard to the effect of over- 
crowding on the moral nature, we can with regaroj t° 
the effect of overcrowding on health ; and in considering 



160 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

this side of the question, let us not lose sight of the truth 
that a nation's health is a nation's wealth. The population 
of England and Wales at the last census was — for the 
towns, about twenty-one millions ; for the rural districts, 
about eight millions. Calculating the death-rates in the 
towns for corresponding age and sex, and comparing them 
with the same for the rural districts, we find that whereas the 
death-rate for the town is 23*32 per thousand, the death-rate 
in the country is only 17*62 per thousand. In other words, 
that whereas in the towns death on an average would occur 
at the age of about forty-five, in the country it would occur 
at the age of about sixty. But if we look further into 
these figures, and subdivide the towns, we find that in the 
congested parts of cities the death-rates are double those 
of the suburbs. In London the death-rate of the outer, or 
suburban, districts is only 15-4 per thousand, as compared 
with between 30 and 40 per thousand in the most crowded 
parts. That is to say, that whilst a man in the crowded dis- 
tricts would, on an average, only live to be say about thirty, 
in the suburbs he would live to be about seventy. In Liver- 
pool, also, the death-rate is double that of the rural districts 
surrounding. 

But this bare statement of figures gives us but a very 
poor idea of the loss to the nation from overcrowding. 
We have to consider, in addition to the early death of the 
victims, the years of sickness, poverty, misery, and suffering 
that ill-health entails on them and their families, and the 
consequent loss of their ability to earn sufficient money to 
keep themselves, thus laying a heavy burden on the rates, 
and upon those relations who, whilst assisting them, are 
already heavily overburdened to maintain themselves. It 
is estimated that in overcrowded districts every workman 
loses, on an average, twenty days each year through ill-health, 
say, on an average of 4s. per day, equal to £4. This is not 
only a loss to the workman and his family, but to the whole 
nation. This loss to the workman is not represented by the 
£4 he has failed to earn ; he has lost something that he can 
never recover. For a rich man to be a few, days away from 
business from ill-health may, perhaps, not be a serious con- 
sideration. His business in all probability will not suffer. 
It would be conducted by his staff, or by his partners, without 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 161 

interruption ; but not so the work of a poor man. Therefore, 
the question of good health, or ill-health, is of all questions 
the most important one to the workers of this country. Why 
overcrowding should have such serious effects on health, and 
increase so enormously the mortality returns, i9 a matter 
more for a doctor to deal with than myself, but when one 
considers the all-importance of ventilation and free circulation 
of air — which conditions can never be obtained where there 
is overcrowding — one sees one possible explanation, and that 
probably not the least. The importance of fresh air and ven- 
tilation upon health is shown when we examine the effect 
of overcrowding in large cities as compared with overcrowd- 
ing in villages, and the statistics I have just given you, showing 
the death-rates of the two, prove that, as far as the effects 
on health are concerned, overcrowding in rural districts is 
nothing like so pernicious as overcrowding in cities. 

We have now inquired into the extent of overcrowding and 
its effects. Let us now see if we can obtain any information 
as to the cause and remedy. I venture to submit to you 
that it is not sufficient to say that the cause lies with the growth 
of population. It may be claimed that the rapid growth 
of the population of this country has produced overcrowding ; 
but when we see that overcrowding exists just as much in 
the rural districts of England, where the population is de- 
creasing, as in towns and cities where population is increasing, 
we are bound to look deeper for the real cause, and this we 
find in the difficulty — either from one reason or another — 
in obtaining land upon which to erect houses for accom- 
modating the people. We find that as land becomes more 
valuable, houses formerly occupied by one family have been 
arranged so that each room in that house should accom- 
modate a family, and in many cases even more than one 
family in each room. As land becomes still more valuable, 
what were formerly the gardens of these houses have been 
built upon, thus producing slums, courts, and rookeries. 
Every public improvement, such as the demolition of old 
property, widening of streets, etc., has increased the over- 
crowding. I venture, therefore, to submit to you that one 
of the principal causes, if not the sole cause, of overcrowding 
is the difficulty in obtaining land at such a price that houses 
for the accommodation of the working classes can be erected 

12 



162 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

thereon, and the remedy must, therefore, be to provide land 
on such a basis that houses for the accommodation of the 
people can be built thereon, to let at rentals within the means 
of those they are intended for. 

This point of view opens up a very grave subject for our 
consideration. It is not my province to-night, however, to 
go into any consideration of land reform. The question I wish 
to go into is solely that of the providing of land for the erection 
of houses ; and, in doing so, I venture to submit to you that 
our municipalities have ample powers in the existing law to 
enable them — if they are so minded — to efficiently deal with 
this question. The overcrowding, as we have seen, is at the 
centre. The remedy for this must be in relieving the pressure 
that exists and which forces the people to live near the centre. 
Dispersion must be the remedy, but not forcible dispersion. 
Our past experience has proved that we have only aggravated 
the evil, when our ideas of dispersion have proceeded no 
further than the destruction of slums and rookeries. We 
must make it possible for the working classes to live at a 
distance from the centre, otherwise all our efforts will be 
in vain. Our efforts, therefore, must be directed to gradual 
dispersion from the centre to the suburban districts, so that, 
by relieving the pressure at the centre, we may lead not only 
to the result of the total abolition of overcrowding, but to 
the lowering of the rents to such an extent at the centre 
that those who are forced to remain there, near their occupa- 
tion, will at least have the benefit of proper accommodation 
for themselves and families. 

In making it possible for the working classes to live 
away from the centre, we must consider two matters — 
that of rent and that of transport. Already, overcrowded 
as they are, we find that 88 per cent." of the working 
classes pay more than one-fifth of their income in rent ; 
of these, 42 per cent, pay about one-quarter of their income, 
and 46 per cent, about one- third of their income. We 
shall all agree that rents should not bear a greater pro- 
portion to income than one-sixth to one-eighth. Therefore, 
it is manifest that present rents cannot be increased, they 
must be reduced. And, also, that if the working classes are 
to be drawn from the centre to the suburbs, the total cost 
of rent and transport at the suburbs must not exceed the 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 163 

cost of rent alone at the centre. I will go further than this, 
and say that the cost of rent and transport must be less at 
the suburbs than the cost of rent alone at the centre, if a 
tangible inducement is to be offered for removal. To produce 
these conditions, we must look to our municipalities to provide 
the land. It is impossible for working men to become owners 
— to any great extent — of their own houses, and, in my opinion, 
it would not be a good investment of their earnings for them 
to own their own houses. The shifting nature of their employ- 
ment, and the uncertainty of the exact locality where it may 
be necessary for them to live from year to year, both render 
it practically impossible for them to become their own land- 
lords. If it were not for this, then it is manifest that the 
working man could make no better investment of his savings 
than in purchasing his own house, and so becoming his own 
landlord ; for apart from the honourable ambition of every 
man to dwell under his own roof, there is the freedom this 
would secure him from arbitrary interference. 

It being doubtful whether schemes for enabling working 
men to acquire their own houses are a remedy for the evils 
attending the present system of the housing of the people, 
municipalities must face the task of offering facilities for the 
erection of better houses in the suburban districts, the rents 
of which, together with the cost of transport of the occupiers 
to and from their daily work, should be less than the rental 
demanded for inferior houses in the congested districts. I 
know of no better way in which this can be done than by the 
municipality acquiring suburban land in large quantities, at 
reasonable prices, and offering this land absolutely free for 
the immediate erection thereon of cottages, in conformity 
with building by-laws specially drawn up for dealing with 
the same. I am aware that this will sound at first a very 
revolutionary proposal, and further, that it will appear to 
many as absolutely unfair to the remaining portion of the 
population. In reality it is neither. It is not revolutionary 
because we have ample precedent for the course proposed. 
Have we not fully admitted the nation's responsibility for 
the education of the nation's children, and have we not 
recognized that the only way in which we can ensure that 
all children shall be educated is to make education free ? 
We have seen that the millions we spend annually on educa- 



164 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

tion are to a certain extent wasted, owing to the improper 
housing of the poor. Therefore, to give free land to ensure 
the proper housing of the people is only an extension of a 
principle we have already accepted. As to the objection 
that it may be unjust to the remaining portion of the popula- 
tion, my endeavour must be to prove that the property built 
on this free land will not only pay for the land which is being 
given, but, in addition, result in a profit to the municipality 
adopting this policy. Therefore, the proposal is neither 
revolutionary nor unjust. 

But, it may be asked, Is it absolutely necessary to provide 
free land ? Cannot we leave this question of free land 
alone, and proceed in some other way ? There is no other 
way than first dealing with the question of land for houses. 
All other methods are simply tinkering with the evil we 
would remedy. Corporations, and notably Liverpool, have 
built blocks of workmen's dwellings — so-called — and anything 
more hideous, more undesirable for the rearing of a family, 
or more wasteful of the public money it would be impossible 
to find. The most you can say of them is that they are 
better than the slums and rookeries they have replaced. 
Whenever I see these blocks of buildings in London and 
elsewhere, I ask myself what our nation will become after 
a few generations have been reared under such conditions, 
and the children's children of those bred and reared in these 
barracks have to take their place as the backbone of this 
country. No ! this system will never do, apart altogether 
from consideration of its costliness and extravagance. But 
I can imagine some one asking, How will free land assist us 
in dealing with this question ? I answer — in many ways ; 
and, amongst others, by preventing speculation in land for 
houses. Now, I do not for one moment wish it to be thought 
that this in itself is an evil, although in many cases it is a 
very serious evil. To-day, land can be bought within reason- 
able reach of the centre of Birkenhead, and other towns, 
at from £100 to £200 per acre. Within the last three years, 
a plot of 300 acres on the Edgware Road, London, within 
seven miles of the Marble Arch, sold at £50 per acre. But, 
by the time the spread of population reaches such land, and 
it is coming into demand for cottages, the price will probably 
be 4s. to 5s. per yard, with the result that it can only be used 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 165 

for the erection of cottages by scheming and planning how 
many cottages can be squeezed on to as few yards of land 
as possible. Instead of which, if the municipality steps to 
our aid, and selects land with reasonable business forethought 
and acumen, they can secure the land at a less price than any 
private individual, and can afford to restrict the number of 
cottages to not exceeding twelve per acre. 

With regard to the price of land, there should be no 
difficulty in buying such land as I have indicated at 
from £100 to £200 per acre, freehold. This is the price 
that land can be bought for in most districts before specu- 
lation in land has set in. It is many times above the 
agricultural value of the land, and on this basis, the pro- 
ceeds of the sale, when invested, would produce many times 
the income previously being derived from the land. It is 
a fair price, and one that most landowners would be very 
glad to receive. At the same time, I do not suggest for 
one moment that an arbitrary fixed value should be 
put on the land to be acquired. The value in all cases 
would be in relation to the market value of the land 
in the district, and could, of course, be easily settled 
by arbitration. I merely take the figure of £100 to £200 
per acre as the price at which in many localities such land 
could be bought, when purchased in large quantities and 
free from speculation. I have already stated that on this 
land not more than twelve houses per acre should be built. 
This would give each house about 400 square yards, including 
roads and streets. This will be found to allow ample space 
for the free circulation of air, and for a small garden both 
at the front and back of the house. 

I will now endeavour to prove that the giving of free 
land for houses is no injustice to existing ratepayers, 
but that in fact the scheme is self-supporting. Taking 
the acre of ground at the cost of £200, the interest 
on this, at say 2§ to 3 per cent., would be £6 per 
annum. The rateable value of the twelve houses we will 
take at only £10 per house, total £120. In most towns the 
total amount of the rates is rather over than under 5s. in the 
pound ; thus the rates on this property would amount to £30 
per annum, showing a surplus of £24 on the rates, after 
allowing for interest. Of course, I do not mean to say that 



166 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

the whole of the £24 would be profit. A very large sum out 
of it would necessarily represent the increased expenditure of 
the municipality incurred in consequence of the erection of 
this property. It is clear, however, that there is considerable 
income at once to be derived from the property, and I claim 
that out of this income the loss of interest, together with 
sinking fund for extinction of principal, could be met. No 
city could possibly be ruined by the adoption of this policy. 
The municipality, that is, the ratepayers, or citizens as a 
body, are the real owners of all property within the city 
boundaries. The so-called owner has in reality only a life 
interest in the property. The demand for payment of rates 
comes first of all, and must be satisfied before mortgagors 
or owners receive their interest or rents. This being so, it 
is clear that the adoption of this policy is nothing more than 
applying the ordinary rules of business to the management 
of municipalities. What business man is there in Birkenhead 
who would not willingly expend £200 on his property in order 
to enable some one else to expend £2,400 in further improving 
it ? Or, who would not willingly face an increase in his working 
expenses of £6 in order to increase his gross profits by £30 ? 

But some may urge that they fail to see how the value 
of the city is to be affected, or the city itself be made more 
prosperous, merely by attracting people from the centre to 
the outskirts. To this I would reply, that drawing the people 
from the centre to the suburbs would not be the only effect 
of the adoption of the policy I have outlined. Such an en- 
lightened policy, offering such facilities, would attract new- 
comers to reside in our midst." But even if it were true that 
the only effect were to draw from the centre to the suburbs, 
I say that this would not in any way affect the truth of 
the claim I have made as to the advantages this system offers. 
It is a well-known fact that overcrowded and wretched 
property, from which it is desirable to withdraw occupiers, 
does not yield anything like its fair share to the rates, and that 
such property is not rated on anything like the basis of the 
rents being paid by the occupiers. A family may pay 4s. 6d. 
a week for the occupation of a single room in a, tenement house, 
but it would be extremely difficult to assess such a house on 
that basis, owing to the fluctuations of the occupancy. The 
house in most cases is rented as a whole to one man, who 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 167 

farms it out to the various sub-tenants. The rates are fixed 
upon the rental as a whole. 

But there are other considerations than the mere balance 
of revenue actually in sight. The whole trade of the borough 
would be improved by the erection of these houses. Brick- 
layers, stone-masons, joiners, plumbers, plasterers, painters, 
etc., would find employment. And when the houses were 
completed the whole of the shopkeepers of the city would 
be benefited by the necessary expenditure for the main- 
tenance of the occupiers. The amount of money required 
to be invested in land would relatively be small, com- 
pared to the benefits to be derived by the whole district. 
The cost of the land should not exceed one-tenth of the 
cost of the property erected upon it ; thus there would be 
ample margin for security. The cost of making the roads on 
the land would, as at present, be chargeable on the property 
they served. But it may be urged that the mere giving of 
the land would effect no reduction in rents, and that the 
cottages built on free land would not necessarily be let at 
such rentals as would be any inducement in attracting from 
the centre to the suburbs. This is not so. Dear land is 
the chief cause of high rents for cottage houses. The cheapen- 
ing of the land will be the most powerful factor in reducing 
cottage rentals. Let municipalities use reasonable care and 
judgment in securing suitable positions for the erection of 
working men's houses, and builders will not be slow to avail 
themselves of the advantages offered. Competition will 
prevent any excess in rents being demanded. The law of 
supply and demand will govern the number of houses, and the 
whole tendency will be in the right direction. Therefore, 
seeing that although the land were given free, those who 
received the land would have sunk on twelve houses at least 
£2,400 per acre in building, and that this would improve 
the whole trade of the borough, we may safely claim that 
owners of the existing property would be more than com- 
pensated by these advantages, and by the stimulus the adop- 
tion of such a policy would give in drawing to the city an 
increased population. 

What is it that is making Birkenhead prosperous at 
the present time ? We shall possibly be told that it is 
the magnificent docks she possesses, or the manufactories 



168 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

that have been established in her midst ; but I venture 
to assert that her real prosperity has sprung from her 
increase in population. It is true this population has been 
attracted to Birkenhead by the employment to be obtained 
at the docks, the manufactories, the shops, and elsewhere, 
but this does not affect the question that it is to the increase 
in population that Birkenhead owes her prosperity ; therefore, 
the adoption by Birkenhead of a policy which would still 
further increase her population must still further increase 
her prosperity. I know of no city in the United Kingdom 
that has such opportunities as Birkenhead for the adoption 
of such an enlightened policy as the one I have outlined. 
The real wealth of Birkenhead is her inhabitants, and the 
prosperity and capital which have been attracted to her. 
Stimulate the increase of population. Offer inducements for 
more capital to be spent in the erection of houses in the 
borough, and you apply the soundest and most powerful 
stimulus you could possibly apply for still increasing her 
prosperity. In the case of Birkenhead, two special benefits 
would accrue, namely, increased traffic on the ferries and 
increased traffic on the electric trams you will soon have run- 
ning. Of course, it would be wise, and necessary, to allow 
on both of these special low rates for the convenience of 
workers at certain hours of the day. But experience has 
always shown that such low rates are really more remunerative 
than high ones. In addition, you have done a noble work 
in lessening the overcrowding of the centre ; for as the better 
class of workers are drawn away from the centre to the out- 
side districts by the inducements you would be able to offer 
in reduced rents, by facilities of transport by your electric 
cars, so the overcrowding at the centre would cease. 

I have occupied your time already too much on the 
financial aspect of the question. I feel confident that you 
will agree with me that if we were to confine ourselves solely 
to the financial point of view, we should be taking a very 
narrow one of our duty. Far greater than the financial 
aspect is the improvement that such a policy would bring 
about in the condition of the people. I speak, from experience 
when I say that nothing elevates and raises the man, his 
wife, and family, so much as placing them under the most 
favourable conditions with regard to their homes, This is 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 169 

especially true with regard to the children who are growing 
up. It is, in my opinion, simply ludicrous for us to spend 
millions a year in educating the young, whilst at the same 
time a very considerable proportion of them are compelled 
to live in houses and under conditions which, as Lord Shaftes- 
bury has pointed out, absolutely neutralize all the benefits 
to be derived from education. We hear it sometimes said 
that the result of our free education is not everything that 
we expected, or that we were justified in looking for. May 
not the cause be, not in our system of free education, not 
in the people themselves, but the method in which the majority 
of them are housed ? To raise the tone of the mind by edu- 
cation, and to cultivate the intelligence by reading, then to 
force both body and mind to live amidst squalor and under 
the most wretched conditions, can only have one result — the 
neutralizing of any good effects that would otherwise have 
resulted from our well-intentioned but misdirected efforts. 
Until we have dealt with this great question of the housing 
of the people, evangelists, temperance reformers, social re- 
formers may rest assured that they are simply attempting 
to clean out an Augean stable, and that, despite all their 
efforts, the state of those they are attempting to elevate 
will not be better, but worse, as each year rolls on. 

I must apologize for having occupied your attention for so 
long a time, and taxed your patience in listening to this paper. 
My excuse must be the importance of the subject. For, 
believe me, it lies at the very root of the future prosperity 
and happiness of our country. Let us face this question 
boldly. The money is a mere bagatelle, as compared with 
the benefits that would accrue. We are the richest nation 
in the world. We require fresh outlets for our capital. 
Nothing that could possibly be suggested would give a 
greater return to the nation than the one I have indicated. 



Ill 

VISIT OF INTERNATIONAL HOUSING 
CONFERENCE 

Port Sunlight, August 9, 1907. 
[Lord Leverhulme welcomed the International Housing Con- 
ference to Port Sunlight, gave the visitors every facility for 
studying an object-lesson so valuable to them in their labours 
for reform, and delivered the subjoined address.] 

The cottage home is the unit of a nation, and therefore 
the more we can raise the comfort and happiness of home- 
life, the more we shall raise the standard of efficiency for 
the whole nation. In the earliest stages of man's civilization 
and development, the struggle for supremacy was between 
individuals, and the individual who excelled the most in the 
possession of health and strength had the greatest probability 
of long life and such happiness as the battle and the chase 
gave to him. Next, the struggle for supremacy was between 
towns, villages, and small communities ; but to-day the struggle 
for supremacy is between nations, not so much on the battle- 
field as in the field of manufactures and commerce. But 
still to-day, as of old, that nation will be declared to be the 
fittest to survive and enjoy the longest life and the utmost 
possible happiness and comfort whose individual citizens 
possess the greatest measure of health and physical fitness. 
The strain of modern life is ever increasing, but this need 
not necessarily tend to the deterioration of the race. Nay, 
on the contrary, the very struggle for existence, as in the past, 
will in the future, if proper attention be paid to healthy 
home- life and environment, tend to produce the greater 
efficiency of a healthier, stronger, and more virile race. Once 
let a nation become careless and indifferent on the question 
of the housing of her citizens, and the reasonable and proper 

170 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 171 

enjoyment by those citizens of healthy relaxation from toil 
when strenuous work is done, and of the conditions favour- 
able to healthy life, and that nation is bound to witness a 
gradual deterioration of physique and vigour. All nations, 
none more so than our own, have been far too long indifferent 
to this great question of Housing Reform and all that it 
means. Happily, all nations, and none more so than our 
own, are now awakening to a due appreciation of the im- 
portance of this matter. Proper housing conditions require 
not only proper air space and good planning within the home, 
but equally the provision of large open spaces and recreation 
grounds outside the home. Statistics have proved, beyond 
the shadow of doubt, that the more the homes of the people 
are spread over the land in proportions not exceeding ten to 
twelve houses to the acre, the lower the death-rate and the 
higher the birth-rate become. Statistics equally prove that 
where the homes of the people are packed like sardines in a 
box, from fifty to eighty houses to the acre in the slum areas, 
the death-rate is more than double the death-rate of those dis- 
tricts where the houses only average ten to twelve to the acre. 
Superior conditions for the cultivation of physical fitness have 
been proved to affect young children most of all : adults may 
stand for a time conditions of overcrowding, but not so children. 
Dr. Arkle, of Liverpool, read a most valuable paper at the 
beginning of this year before the North of England Educa- 
tional Conference held at Bradford. At the time of reading 
this paper the Royal Commissions on National Degeneration 
and the Underfeeding of School Children were holding their 
sittings. Dr. Arkle, at the request of the Liveipool Educa- 
tional Committee, had examined all the children in various 
grades of schools in Liverpool. The careful method he followed 
ensured the absolute reliability of his information. Dr. Arkle 
arrived at the following startling conclusions : — 

(a) That the difference of physique between the children 
in the Higher Grade Schools and the poorer Council 
Schools has reached an alarming proportion. 

(b) That the deterioration appears to grow greater as 
life progresses. 

(c) That, medically, there is nothing to account for the 
deterioration ; and 



172 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 



(d) That the Industrial School figures show that by 
care and attention this deterioration can be stopped, and 
to some extent, at any rate, the leeway made good. 

Dr. Arkle classified the schools into four classes — 

Higher Grade Schools, where the sons of leading wealthy 
citizens are educated. 

Council Schools (a) : Type of the best Council School, 
where the parents of the children are well-to-do and 
the children have mostly comfortable homes. 

Council Schools (b) : Type of school where the children are 
mostly of the labouring classes. It was selected as a 
type for the children of the labouring classes whose 
parents have constant employment. 

Council Schools (c),the last of the Council Schools, is a type 
of the poorest class, where the parents of the children 
belong almost entirely to the unemployed or casual 
labour sections. 

To this list we will add a fifth class, viz. — 

Port Sunlight Schools, which may be taken as equal to 
the type (b) of the Council Schools. The parents are mostly 
of the labouring classes, in constant employment, but 
with the difference that the houses in which the children 
mostly live are built with ample air space, not more than 
seven houses to the acre. 

At seven years of age we find the average height and weight 
of boys to be as follows : — 



Higher Grade Schools 
Council Schools (a) 
(b) 
(c) 
Port Sunlight Schools 

At eleven years of age : — 

Higher Grade Schools 
Council Schools (a) 
(b) 

M 
Port Sunlight Schools 



Height. 
In. 


Weight 
Lb. 


47*4 


49*3 


45*3 


44.1 


44-8 


43*o 


44-o 


43*o 


457 


50-3 


55'5 ; 


70*3 


53*i 


6i-4 


5i-8 


59'° 


497 


k55-5 


52*4 


1,65-9 



Height. 


Weight. 


In. 


In. 


6l'7 


94*5 


53-2 


75*8 


56-2 


75'9 


55*2 


71-1 


607 


105 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 173 

At fourteen years of age : — 

Higher Grade Schools . 
Council Schools (a) 

(b) • 

(c) • 
Port Sunlight Schools . 

The measurements of Port Sunlight children were taken 
by Dr. J. Mackenzie, M.B., Ch.B., Resident Medical Officer, 
Port Sunlight, and he writes as follows : — 

Messrs. Lever Brothers Limited. 

I certify that I have taken the weight and height measure- 
ments of all the children from five years of age and upwards 
attending the Port Sunlight Schools. The results are given in 
the accompanying tabulation (see Appendix, pp. 174 and 175). 

The height measurements were taken with boots off, and the 
weights in ordinary indoor clothing. 

(Signed) J. Mackenzie, M.B., Ch.B. 

Dr. Arkle comments, in comparing the boys in the Higher 
Grade Schools and the type (c) Council Schools, that the 
startling fact is disclosed that a boy of eleven in the Higher 
Grade School is practically as tall and as heavy as a boy of 
fourteen in the type (c) Council Schools. We may further 
add to this that Garden City life at Port Sunlight discloses 
the fact that the sons and daughters of our artisans and 
labouring population of Port Sunlight attain superior height and 
weight at equal ages than the statistics show in Council Schools 
in Liverpool at which the children of parents in similar positions 
are educated. I do not think we need be surprised at this — 
the development of the child must be affected by the food 
it eats and by its environment. However that may be, the 
figures relating to Port Sunlight conclusively prove that, given 
regularity and permanency of employment of the parents, 
and consequently also of feeding and clothing of the children, 
reasonable and proper housing conditions, plenty of surround- 
ing land for healthy open-air recreation, provision of parks, 
swimming baths, gymnasia, football field, cricket field, clubs, 
and all that makes for healthy outdoor life, and the children 
of our artisans and labouring people become equal in physique 
to those of the better classes. Unhappily, the statistics re- 
lating to type (c) Council Schools equally clearly show that 



APPENDIX TO DR. 
HEIGHT AND 



School. 


6 

Years. 


6£ 
Years. 


7 
Years. 


Years. 


8 
Years. 


Years. 


9 

Years. 


Years. 


Elementary . . Port Sunlight 


Ft. In. 
3 6*9i 


Ft. In. 
3 8-o 4 


Ft. In. 

3 974 


Ft. In. 
3 10*70 


Ft. In. 
3 ii'5i 


Ft. In. 
4 0*50 


Ft. In. 

4 1-19 


Ft. In. 
4 2*67 


Secondary . . Liverpool 




3 iroo 


3 n'40 


4 1-83 


4 2'6l 


4 2*50 


4 4-03 


4 4-37 


Council School " A " do. 






3 9*33 


3 10*70 


3 "-67 


3 11*62 


4 176 


4 i-75 


do. " B " do. 


3 7*25 


3 675 


3 8*8o 


3 8*17 


3 IO'OO 


3 Ii*33 


4 o*8o 


4 i'6i 


do. " C " do. 






3 8'oo 


3 10*00 


3 8*37 


3 9-20 


3 iroo 


4 o*oo 


Industrial School do. 


3 3'°o 




3 9*25 




3 10-30 


- 


3 io*8o 




Elementary . . Port Sunlight 


Lb. 

44'i6 


Lb. 
46*54 


Lb. 

50*28 


Lb. 

51*24 


Lb. 
53-36 


Lb. 
54-86 


Lb. 
58*66 


Lb. 
56*61 


Secondary . . Liverpool 




48*00 


49"30 


56*7o 


56*7o 


52'50 


59*52 


61*40 


Council School " A " do. 






44*10 


48*77 


46*44 


47-oo 


53-33 


57*35 


do. " B " do. 


37"oo 


36*50 


43*oo 


42*11 


45-64 


47-20 


50-85 


53*i6 


do. " C " do. 






43*oo 


46*00 


43-87 


45-30 


48-38 


5i*5o 


Industrial School do. 


41*00 




46*75 




49'50 




53-5o 





HEIGHT AND 



School. 


6 

Years. 


6J 

Years. 


7 
Years. 


7i 
Years. 


8 
Years. 


H 
Years. 


9 

Years. 


v 9i 
Years. 


Elementary . . Port Sunlight 


Ft. In. 
3 6*13 


Ft. In. 
3 8*02 


Ft. In. 

3 8*8i 


Ft. In. 
3 9'6i 


Ft. In. 
3 9*3i 


Ft. In. 
4 0*09 


Ft. In. 
3 "-41 


Ft. In. 
4 0-37 


Council School " A " Liverpool 






3 io*75 


3 10*13 


3 "*50 


4 0*25 


4 2*62 


4 2*25 


do. " B " do. 




3 8; 00 


3 8*25 


3 9-77 


3 1073 


3 io'57 


4 0*25 


4 1*20 


do. " C " do. 






3 9-12 


3 8*75 


3 8*87 


3 9-5o 


3 ifi6 


4 o'oo 


Industrial School do. 






3 7-70 




3 6*25 




3 8*25 




Elementary . . Port Sunlight 


Lb. 
44*88 


Lb. 
44*45 


Lb. 
47-36 


Lb. 

48*78 


Lb. 
49-98 


Lb. 

54*29 


Lb. 

56'oi 


Lb. 
53'69 


Council School " A " Liverpool 


•• 




43-oo 


44* 60 


48-85 


50*00 


52*00 


52-85 


do. " B " do. 




45'3o 


41*10 


45-oo 


45-90 


47-50 


49*90 


52-50 


do. " C " do. 






4700 


50-00 


44-16 


46-70 


48*50 


50*05 


Industrial School do. 






40*00 




38-30 




42-40 





MACKENZIE'S LETTER 

WEIGHT OF BOYS. 



IO 

Years. 


19* 

Years. 


n 
Years. 


Years. 


12 
Years. 


Mi 

Years. 


13 
Years. 


134 

Years. 


14 
Years. 


*4* 

Years. 


15 
Years. 


Ft. In. 
4 2-41 


Ft. In. 
4 475 


Ft. In. 

4 436 


Ft*. In. 
4 5'oo 


Ft. In. 
4 624 


Ft. In. 
4 6*84 


Ft. In. 
4 8-46 


Ft. In. 
4 7*47 


Ft. In. 
5 o*75 


Ft. In. 
5 2*75 


Ft. In. 
5 2*50 


4 6-41 


4 683 


4 7*50 


4 8-8 7 


4 IO'OO 


4 9*40 


5 055 


4 ii77 


5 175 


5 3"6o 


5 543 


4 330 


4 37o 


4 5'n 


4 6-25 


4 6-90 


4 7*5o 


4 905 


4 8*62 


4 10*20 


4 8*8o 


5 2*75 


4 i'7o 


4 304 


4 3"8o 


4 4'53 


4 5 '60 


4 6*34 


4 5 '90 


4 7*23 


4 8-25 




4 7*25 


4 050 


4 o75 


4 175 


4 2-30 


4 3'6o 


4 4'i6 


4 5'6o 


4 6*55 


4 7*25 






4 I'I2 




4 404 




4 5 00 




4 651 










Lb. 

6226 


Lb. 
6301 


Lb. 
6586 


Lb. 
66*79 


Lb. 
72-71 


Lb. 

74*22 


Lb. 
79*60 


Lb. 
73*72 


Lb. 
105*00 


Lb. 
10850 


Lb. 
10675 


6603 


6876 


70-27 


7475 


77*o5 


74*oo 


88-25 


85*72 


94'5o 


108*90 


108*30 


55'io 


5643 


6i*45 


6280 


6660 


69*00 


73*42 


74*26 


75*82 


72*80 


9630 


53*00 


56*60 


59 - o5 


60*79 


63-92 


67*50 


68-75 


68-50 


75*87 




6500 




54'37 

i 


55"50 
65-81 


5830 


6205 
6800 


6373 


69*33 
73'oo 


70-63 


71*14 




* * 



WEIGHT OF GIRLS. 



10 
Years. 


io£ 
Years. 


n 
Years. 


til 

Years. 


12 

Years. 


12£ 

Years. 


13 
Years. 


I3l 

Years. 


14 
Years. 


Hi 
Years. 


15 
Years. 


Ft. In. 
4 236 


Ft. In. 
4 4*3i 


Ft. In. 
4 3*97 


Ft. In. 
4 5*32 


Ft. In. 
4 6*90 


Ft. In. 
4 8-37 


Ft. In. 
4 963 


Ft. In. 
4 n'32 


Ft. In. 
5 0-25 


Ft. In. 
5 0*25 


Ft. In. 


4 3"25 


4 2-75 


4 5'oo 


4 4*75 


4 7*25 


4 9*oo 


4 8*30 


4 io75 


5 0-50 


5 1*25 


5 025 


4 i"76 


4 3*35 


4 4*12 


4 4*25 


4 5*7o 


4 6*14 


4 7*3° 


4 8-87 


4 5*70 


4 IO'OO 




4 0*17 


4 0-30 


4 i'o6 


4 2*70 


4 4"i6 


4 5"i6 


4 7*50 


4 7 "00 


4 8-50 






4 030 




4 i*05 


















Lb. 
59*85 


Lb. 
64*24 


Lb. 

62*34 


Lb. 
6769 


Lb. 
73*19 


Lb. 
76*77 


Lb. 

80*23 


Lb. 
83*12 


Lb. 

78-00 


Lb. 
97*5o 


Lb. 


57*5o 


55*46 


61*28 


6070 


7i*3i 


77'30 


70-30 


80-50 


93'3o 


97*io 


93*45 


54*30 


5957 


62*50 


6l*20 


6707 


677o 


73-16 


75*8o 


74*57 


84-00 




52*75 


53*20 


56*25 


60-57 


67*70 


69-12 


73*30 


74-00 


82*00 




• • 


5 1*30 




60' 60 




1 - 




67*00 




•- 


•♦ 





176 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 



where these conditions do not prevail the effect is disastrous 
to healthy development during childhood. 

These statistics of Dr. Arkle, however, only reveal the 
conditions produced by overcrowding at the commencement 
of life. Dr. Arkle unfortunately has not been able to take 
comparative statistics relating to the parents and adults in 
the classes from whom the children in the various types of 
schools spring. We can, however, obtain statistics from the 
Registrar-General's Return for the United Kingdom, which 
shows that the death-rate in England varies from about 9 per 
thousand in suburban areas to about 35 per thousand in 
congested slum areas, whilst the average death-rate in the 
United Kingdom is about 16 per thousand. The birth-rate 
also varies, the average for the United Kingdom being about 
26 per thousand. 

The statistics of death-rate and birth-rate for Port Sun- 
light are as follows (figures now brought up to 1917) : — 



Statement showing the Ratio of Births and Deaths per 
1,000 of Population at Port Sunlight. 



Year. 


Estimated 
Population. 


Deaths per 1,000. 


Births per 1,000. 


I9OO . . 






2,007 


12-45 


48-33 


I9OI . . 






2,331 


12-87 


5I-48 


1902 . . 






2,484 


7-24 


39*45 


1903 • • 






2,580 


8-14 


52-71 


I9O4 . . 






2,6lO 


12-26 


47-90 


1905 • • 






2,700 


5'55 


42-70 


I906 . . 






2,900 


10-00 


35-86 


1907 . . 






2,98l 


8-05 


3X*36 


I908 . . 






3,06l 


12-08 


33*50 


I9O9 . . . 






3,137 


10-08 


28-17 


1910 . . 






3,198 


9*30 


26-20 


I9II 






3,604 


8-14 


26-68 


1912 . . 






3,662 


7.46 


22-93 


1913 . . 






3,864 


8-28 


24-80 


1914 . . 






4,100 


8-04 


19*75 


1915 • • 






4,146 


7.90 


19-05 


I916 . . . 






4>5oo 


8-oo 


19*55 


1917 . . 






4,600 


9'i3 


1673 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 177 

In considering these figures of death-rate of Port Sunlight 
it is necessary to point out that the death-rate has repeatedly 
been swelled, both with regard to the deaths of children and 
of old people, by the fact that residents in Port Sunlight 
often invite their aged and infirm parents and the sick children 
of their relatives to come and live with them in Port Sunlight. 
This we know as a fact has often seriously swelled the death- 
rate. As far as we can ascertain, after making due allowance 
for the deaths in the village of non-residents, the death-rate 
of the inhabitants of Port Sunlight averages about 8 to 9 
per thousand. 

Another side of Garden City life is revealed by statistics 
with reference to marriage and the size of families. The 
following statistics relating to Port Sunlight have been drawn 
up by Mr. Duncan C. Fraser, the well-known actuary in 
Liverpool. Mr. Fraser took for his calculation those em- 
ployees of Lever Brothers who, at the end of 1905, had seen 
ten years' service or over with the firm, their age and salary, 
married, widower, or single, and number of children under 
the age of seventeen years. Every employee of ten years' 
service and over, of the age of twenty-five or over, was in- 
cluded, from the highest official to the lowest labouring man. 
On this clear basis Mr. Fraser divided the employees into 
six grades : — 

Lower grade workmen, earning on the average £67 a 
year. 

Higher grade workmen, earning on the average £99 a 
year. 

Lower grade clerks, with an average income of £128 
a year. 

Higher grade clerks, being the higher section of the 
clerical staff, heads of departments, and men in positions 
of responsibility, the average earnings being £191 a 
year. 

Lower grade business men who were actually engaged 
in selling the products of the firm, the average income 
being £346. 

Higher grade business men who were directors, 
managers, and controllers, with salaries of over £1,000 a 
year. 

13 



178 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 



The above six grades therefore fall into three well-marked 
social divisions — working men, clerks, and business men — and 
each division is subdivided into lower and higher grades. 

The following table gives the percentage of married men 
amongst these various grades : — 

Per cent. 



Lower grade workmen 


. .. 7 8 


Higher grade workmen 


. .. 96 


Lower grade clerks 


.. 71 


Higher grade clerks 


.. 66 


Lower grade business men 


. .. 96 


Higher grade business men . . 


.. 92 



The higher proportion of married men among the higher 
grade of working men is very striking, every man over the 
age of forty being married and having a wife living. 

Mr. Fraser next compares the different grades with reference 
to the number of children (the children who were living and 
under the age of seventeen at the end of 1905 were classified 
according to the ages and grades of their fathers), and the 
average number of children per married man in each grade 
was found to be as follows : — 

Children under Seventeen per Married Man. 



Ages of 
Fathers. 


Workman, 
Lower 
Grade. 


Workman, 
Higher 
Grade. 


Clerk, 
Lower 
Grade. 


Clerk, 
Higher 
Grade. 


Business 
Man, 
Lower 
Grade. 


Business 
Man, 
Higher 
Grade. 


25-29 


1*0 


1-7 


0-4 


1*0 


___ 





30-34 


2*0 


27 


1*0 


2'0 


1-0 


17 


35-39 


2-9 


3*5 


17 


i-5 


17 


2'5 


40-44 


2-6 


4-i 


— 


— 


1-2 


2*5 


45-49 


3*1 


2-9 


2-0 


2-0 


2*2 


i-6 


50-54 


2-9 


2-9 


— 


6-o 


1*0 


2-2 


55-59 


0-4 


I/O 


— 


i-o 


— 


— 


60-69 


— 


■" - - 


-• 


1 ■ 


""" " 


"■"■" 



From this table it will be seen that the higher grade of 
working men take the lead in a most remarkable manner, 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 



170 



Mr. Fraser next calculated, taking the number of children 
per higher grade workman as the standard, the percentage 
there actually was in the other grades, and the result was 
shown to be as follows : — 



Percentage of Children under Seventeen per Married 
Man compared with the Standard of Children of Higher 
Grade Working Men. 



Working men (higher grade) 


Per cent. 
. . IOO'O 


(lower grade) 


. . 77-9 


Clerks (higher grade) 


. . 6i-i 


,, (lower grade) . . 


. . 42-6 


Business men (higher grade) 


. . 62-4 


,, (lower grade) 


• . 47*5 



Mr. Fraser next considers the question of children from 
another point of view. The above table deals with the 
number of children per married man. Next Mr. Fraser 
calculates the number of children per male employee in each 
of the above grades, whether the employee be married or 
single. This table, it will be noted, introduces as a further 
factor in the calculation the percentage of men unmarried at 
each grade. The result obtained in calculating the number 
of children under seventeen per man to each grade, taking 
the higher grade working men as the standard, was as 
follows : — 



Working men (higher grade) 


Per cent. 
. . 100*0 


„ (lower grade) 


. . 65-2 


Business men (higher grade) 


• -. 58-3 


„ (lower grade) 


. . 46-8 


Clerks (higher grade) 


• • 45*5 


„ (lower grade) 


• • 33*o 



Practically it will be seen that the male employees of all 
the other grades, taken together, rise only half way to the 
standard set by the higher grade working men. 

Mr. Fraser next prepared statistics in which the children 
are grouped in families, and the average number of children 
under seventeen per family arrived at was as follows : — 



180 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 



Working men (higher grade) 


Per cent. 

... 3-1 


„ (lower grade) 


2-1 


Business men (higher grade) 


. . i-8 


„ (lower grade) 


1-4 


Clerks (higher grade) 


2-0 


„ (lower grade) 


1-2 



The preponderance of large families amongst the higher 
grade working men is very striking, and it was also found 
that more than half the children of the higher grade of working 
men were in families of more than four children. So far 
as Port Sunlight is concerned, it is clear that this is the grade 
which provides the increase of population. If Port Sunlight 
is representative of the general population of the United 
Kingdom, then we can assume that the increase of population, 
and in fact the great majority of the future population, will 
be provided by the higher grade of working men, the most 
intelligent and the fittest of their class, and we may take 
the most optimistic view of the future. 

But if Port Sunlight is not representative of the general 
population of the United Kingdom, the figures are not the 
less interesting. They show that under favourable conditions, 
as regards employment and housing and general environment, 
such as exist at Port Sunlight, the most intelligent of the 
working classes will provide their full share and even more 
of the future population, and that Port Sunlight shows the 
way to the rest of England. 

Another fact disclosed by Mr. Fraser's statistics is that it 
will be seen the marriage-rate varies in accordance with what 
may be called the surplus income of the man. By the word 
" surplus " income I wish to draw our thoughts away from 
actual income. A manager in receipt of a few hundreds a 
year, living in a certain style, may have little or no surplus 
income. A clerk on £2 a week dressing in cloth has less 
surplus income than a mechanic on 35s. per week. Bearing 
this fact in mind, the figures clearly show that the marriage- 
rate is higher among the better class artisans, which is the 
class that enjoys, of all workers, the largest amount of surplus 
income. A clerk stands at the lowest as far as surplus income 
is concerned. This you will see affects both the marriage- 
rate and birth-rate 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 181 

I must apologize for occupying so much of your time with 
these statistics, but they are essentially necessary in con- 
sidering Garden City life and its effect upon the develop- 
ment of the race. I am positive, from all the statistics avail- 
able, that the most healthy conditions of the human race 
are obtained where the home unit exists in a self-contained 
house, with the living rooms on the ground floor and the bed- 
rooms on the floor immediately over. All tenement dwellings, 
flats, and such devices for crowding a maximum amount of 
humanity in a minimum amount of ground space are de- 
structive of healthy life, and whilst they may be endured 
possibly by adults, are seriously and permanently injurious 
to the growth and development of children. The building of 
ten to twelve houses to the acre is the maximum that ought 
to be allowed ; any excess beyond this ought to be strictly 
prohibited by building by-laws, whilst the width of roadway 
ought to be increased to a minimum of 45 feet. The neces- 
sity for paving and macadamizing of the whole roadway and 
flagging the whole of the footpath, kerbing and channelling 
of the gutters, should be dispensed with in rural areas. A 
strip down the centre roadway of 15 to 18 feet wide, properly 
pitched and macadamized, for vehicular traffic, and strips 
4 feet wide, flagged or gravelled, for footpaths down each side, 
the remainder of the roadway and footpaths being finished in 
grass, with, if possible, an avenue of trees on each side, will 
be found to be the cheapest and best form of road construc- 
tion. Houses should be built a minimum of 15 feet from the 
roadway, and 25 feet or more where practicable ; every house 
should have a space available in the rear for vegetable garden. 
Open spaces for recreation should be laid out at frequent 
and convenient centres. There is no difficulty in providing 
these conditions. Even taking the area of London, I find 
that these conditions could be enjoyed to-day if proper dis- 
tribution of houses on the land within the area had been made. 
The metropolitan area of London is 74,839 acres, with a popu- 
lation of 4,536,541, which is at the rate of twelve houses to 
the acre, each house containing five persons. The fact is, we 
do our town planning after the mode of badly packed trunks. 
We all know that one's wardrobe badly packed in a trunk 
is spoiled, and the trunk appears all too small for what it 
has to hold. But on our wardrobe being carefully folded, the 



182 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

same trunk holds all that is required, without damage, and 
with greater convenience of access. Our by-laws already 
limit the number of lodgers allowed in a lodging-house, and 
there should be by-laws restricting the number of houses to 
the acre. If this is done and a relaxation of the building 
conditions as to the material to be used permits a greater 
range of selection of building material, thus reducing the 
heavy expense of building and of road-making to what is 
absolutely reasonable and necessary, then not only will build- 
ing become cheaper and road-making cheaper, but infinitely 
superior in quality. Less elaboration in architectural effects 
would be needed to make a beautiful city, town, or village 
than under present conditions ; a few sprays of ivy and a 
greensward in front of a house, a shrub here and there, and 
the plainest and most economical cottage, architecturally, 
becomes more beautiful than a more costly and elaborate 
one built right on the edge of the footpath without any inter- 
vening fringe of greensward. A home requires a greensward 
and garden in front of it, just as much as a cup requires a 
saucer or a hat the brim. Dust nuisance from passing traffic 
would be reduced in all such homes, and the conditions of 
living would become healthy and happy. 

At Port Sunlight efforts have been made to carry out these 
conditions, with what success you will be better able to judge 
than ourselves. 



IV 
STANDARDIZING WELFARE 

Sheffield, September 24, 1917. 

[The students of Sheffield University having expressed a desire 
to know something more of the practical side of Welfare 
Work than could ordinarily be learnt from speeches, Lord 
Leverhulme was invited to address them. He congratulated 
the University on possessing what he could well believe was 
the finest metallurgical laboratory in the world and on having 
provided the country with a Minister of Education. Under 
Mr. Fisher's guidance, he hoped, our past errors would be 
obliterated by our future victories. He proceeded :] 

I think the first fact that we must recognize is that, in 
the coming days, the employer will not be considered to be 
the sole arbiter of the conditions of employment, nor will the 
employee. The time is coming — and coming very rapidly — 
when both employer and employee must be more subject 
than they are to-day to control by the State. It is not 
merely a question of the rights and duties of employer and 
employee, but we know now that the public, the consumer, 
and, in fact, the well-being of the State and of the Empire, 
have also to be considered. We have not yet developed 
to the point that we can be trusted, any of us, to be unselfish 
from the highest motives of enlightened self-interest. The 
education and health and training in efficiency of the whole 
nation depend upon the hours of labour and the conditions 
of employment. 

I know that there is a preconceived false idea in many 
minds that welfare work in factories is largely a question 
of canteens, model villages, free libraries, and so on ; but, 
in my opinion, welfare work in factories is much more a ques- 
tion of wages and hours, of ventilation in the factory, of 
cubical air space, of heating and lighting and sanitation, 

183 



184 THE SIX-HOUE DAY 

than it is a question of any of the so-called welfare work of 
canteens and so on. Every fact, circumstance, and condition 
of employment affecting the workers engaged in a factory or 
office — mentally, physically, or materially — must come within 
its scope. 

Our modern problem in considering industrial develop- 
ments is merely one of size. The metallurgical laboratory 
you have shown to me this afternoon is probably many times 
larger than the largest engineering works in Sheffield a century 
and a half ago, and yet it is only an experimental and train- 
ing college for students. A bigger development in indus- 
trialism than that made in the last fifty years will be made 
in the next fifty years ; and yet the progress and development 
made since, say i860, to the present time are probably 
greater, in science and industrialism throughout the world, 
than achieved in all the centuries preceding that time. Up 
to now, the creation of our machinery with due suitability to 
the work it had to perform has been the only item in a factory 
that has received full consideration. The men and women 
operating the machines have been entirely forgotten and 
neglected. I need not enlarge on these points here; I 
am speaking to those who have become aware of this out- 
standing and appalling fact in the course of their study of 
welfare work. It is quite sufficient merely to mention this 
fact and to pass on, and I will, therefore, at once plunge into 
a consideration of some methods of standardizing welfare 
work in factories. 

Before the employer approaches the consideration of wel- 
fare work for employees, the first care of all must be the 
factory building itself and its ventilation, lighting, and sanita- 
tion. Its position is much better in suburban or rural areas 
than in the town itself. The factory buildings must be 
well lighted and well ventilated. Canteens are a necessary part 
of the equipment, but appliances intended to produce the 
good health of the employees have not received in the past 
sufficient attention, and they are entitled to the fullest con- 
sideration. 

Now that we have women workers doing the work of 
men away on war service, the factory clothing has been 
adapted to their new employment. Now, baths are an 
essential in factories. Rest-rooms are an essential as well as 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 185 

clothing and other items ; but of the greatest importance of 
all in these matters is the prevention of accidents — a move- 
ment called " Safety First," which, I believe, originated 
in the United States. But before I can explain a working 
system with regard to the prevention of accidents, I would 
like to explain to you a system of Works Committees, because 
it is through the Works Committees that the scheme for the 
prevention of accidents is carried on. 

I am constantly being asked the question whether the 
rank-and-file workers cannot sit on Boards of Directors and 
engage in the highest policy of business management as 
Directors. Now, may I put the problem to you thus : As 
one who knew nothing at all about the business of soap- 
making thirty years ago, I had to begin in a small way. Each 
of our Directors has been a member of the staff, with one 
solitary exception, and it was only as I and my colleagues 
acquired knowledge and experience step by step that we 
were qualified for the larger business and ever-increasing 
business. That rule must apply throughout the whole of the 
staff, and therefore we must begin with a system of Works 
Committees. 

Now, one system of Works Committees that I propose 
to describe may be briefly defined as follows : It commences 
with the formation of Divisional Works Committees ; these 
Divisional Works Committees are subsidiary to a General 
Works Council, which, in its turn, is subsidiary to the Works 
Control Board, so you see there are three lines of committees 
— Divisional Works Committees, General Works Council, 
and Works Control Board. The constitution and duties 
of the Divisional Committees are as follows : Each depart- 
ment of the works appoints its own Divisional Committee, 
consisting of ten members. That is, each department of 
the works, remember ; and in the example I refer to there 
are twenty of these Divisional Committees, which means a 
total of 200 members. Of the ten members of each Divisional 
Committee, five represent management and five represent 
the staff, and the chairman is elected from the five members 
of the management. The members of the staff, as well as 
of the management, must be co-partners, which means that 
they must have had at least four years' service with the firm. 
They are nominated and elected by the employees of the 



186 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

department they represent. Employee representatives sit 
for six months only and then retire, but are eligible for re- 
election after twelve months. This system is to obtain 
as wide an interest as possible. Where males and females 
are employed, separate committees of females may, if desired, 
be appointed. 

The duties of Divisional Committees are : (a) Dealing 
with suggestions made by the staff. These suggestions 
cover a wide field : they relate to improvement in the con- 
duct of the work, suggestions with regard to the safety and 
health of the employees, and any matter about which a member 
of the staff may desire to make a suggestion, (b) Suggestions 
can be made for the betterment of the division, or the works 
as a whole, (c) The third duty is to see to the observance 
of the rules and regulations and to suppress waste and irregu- 
larities, (d) To inquire into all accidents, (e) To hear 
appeals against dismissals — that is a very important matter ; 
and (/) to make general recommendations on any subject. 
Meetings may be held alternately in the Company's and in 
the employees' own time ; therefore, you see, half the meet- 
ings may be held in the Company's time, say morning or 
afternoon, and half in the employees' time, in the evening. 
No fees or payments attach to membership. 

As I said before, there are twenty of these Divisional Com- 
mittees. Of the duties mentioned, it is found that dealing 
with and investigating suggestions and making sugges- 
tions for betterment and prevention of accidents occupy the 
largest portion of the time and attention of the Divisional 
Committees. With regard to the first two, Suggestion Boxes 
are installed in conspicuous and convenient places throughout 
the works, containing necessary stationery forms and enve- 
lopes. An employee wishing to make a suggestion does 
so on the form provided for that purpose, signs his or her 
name or not, as either may wish, places it in an envelope, 
and puts it in the letter-box. The secretary of the Divisional 
Committee, on receipt of the suggestion, enters it on the 
register, gives a number to it, and sends a receipt for it to 
the suggestor. The Divisional Committee, can, after dis- 
cussion, recommend its adoption or rejection or modification, 
but has no other power, and then it passes on to the General 
Works Council 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 187 

With regard to accidents : When an employee meets 
with an accident, however trivial, he or she must immediately 
report to the foreman or forewoman, who in turn reports 
to the Divisional Manager, in order that a notice may be 
sent to the Safety Inspector. It is the duty of the Divi- 
sional Committee, after hearing evidence on the accident, 
to record the cause of the accident. Arising out of the 
inquiry, the Divisional Committee make recommendations 
for prevention of similar future accidents by the installation 
of suggested safety appliances. There is no branch of wel- 
fare work in factories that is so necessary and, in fact, so 
essential to efficiency as the installation of a Safety First 
Committee and a Safety First Inspector, and, in connection 
therewith, a surgery or first-aid room. Accident prevention 
pays. Prevention is not merely a question of guards. The 
education of the employee on lines of safety is most important. 
The axiom of all of us must be that it is always better to 
remove a source of danger than to set guards around it. 
Guards are of great value, but they are not the only means 
of protection. Careful and systematic education of the 
employees in the principles of Safety First are of, at least, 
equal importance. Now, there are Safety Museums in 
France and in the United States ; we have none in the United 
Kingdom. Our lack in this has been pointed out to the 
Home Office. The Home Office does nothing beyond 
expressing its blessing, but takes no action to grant the 
blessing of a Safety Museum. Now, safety and prevention 
of accident must not be merely a putting up of placards. 
I could give you an instance of a suggestion from the 
employees to show that mere notices in themselves are not 
as important as the education and arousing the personal 
interest of the staff. In the case of a machine operated by 
women serious accidents were continually occurring, and 
all attempts to adequately prevent them failed. A sugges- 
tion of a safety appliance to be fixed to the machine was 
made by one of the employees. It was so applied, and no 
accident has since occurred. The time taken up by these 
Divisional meetings is not large. 

We have throughout the works a number of what are 
called " Safety Bulletin Boards." These are placed at the 
entrance to each factory building, and on these boards is 



188 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

exhibited a summary of the various safety notices, so that 
the principal ones are at all times on view to the employee. 
These occupy one-half of the board, and on the other half any 
special notices for the day or week are exhibited from time to 
time. When new notices are put up, a cut-out finger, printed, 
is pointed to the notices and placed above them. Mottoes 
are hung in various departments to get the various emp^ees 
interested in reading the notices, and new mottoes are con- 
tinually gathered and added to the list. The most frequent 
source of accidents is the neglect of employees to replace 
the guards on machinery after cleaning or oiling. To prevent 
this there has been originated a system of small tablets, printed 
in red, and so fixed as to come into view only when the guard 
is removed, so that if the guard is not replaced this tablet 
announces the fact to the operator. To superintend all 
this finds full employment for what is called a " Safety In- 
spector," who devotes the whole of his time to the duties of 
" Safety First." He makes a systematic inspection of guards 
and sees that they are maintained in an efficient manner. 
Now, I will give you the opinion of His- Majesty's Chief 
Inspector of Factories for the North- Western Division. In 
reviewing the cases of accidents that came before him, he 
suggests " the adoption of a scheme in force in a very large 
works in his district which he thinks would do more to reduce 
accidents than any Act of Parliament or an army of in- 
spectors." He then proceeds to describe the scheme I have 
just outlined to you — the Safety First scheme — but, of course, 
without naming the firm or giving any clue for identification. 
I will now give you some figures. I have got here a Safety 
Inspector's Report for last August. It reads as follows : — 

Since my appointment as Factory Safety Inspector of these 
works the number of accidents has been reduced to almost a 
minimum, and to achieve this end it was first of all necessary to 
educate our employees to the knowledge that " Safety " was for 
them. Safety Notices and Bulletins were freely exhibited on 
special Bulletin Boards throughout the factory, and at the com- 
mencement of this campaign the employees wondered what was 
meant by the steps taken. After accidents had occurred and 
safety devices had been installed to prevent their recurrence, 
they were quick to realize and appreciate the precautions taken 
to eliminate accidents, however trivial. Our employees are now 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 189 

almost as enthusiastic as myself, and from day to day I am in 
receipt of suggestions as to the treatment of what they themselves 
consider " danger zones." 

It is evident to all that the number of accidents since the 
inauguration of our campaign has been materially reduced, as 
compared with the number reported during the corresponding 
period of the year 1916. This, in face of the fact that a very 
large proportion of our workpeople are new to our class of work, 
consequent upon the dilution of male labour entailed by the 
calling of our men to the Colours. Hundreds of women are now 
engaged on work previously executed by these men, and 
although working at abnormal pressure and under conditions 
which tend to an increased accident roll, I am happy to be able 
to report a reduction in the number of reportable accidents of 
64 per cent. During the first six months of 1916, 113 accidents 
were reported to H.M. Inspector ; during the first six months of 
1917 this number was reduced to 41, whilst the amount paid in 
compensation showed a reduction of nearly £100, and in loss of 
wages to employees of £160. 

Notices for our bulletin cases are changed weekly, with the 
exception of those appearing in the left-hand portion of the case, 
which are of a permanent nature. 

In addition to these bulletins and permanent notices we have 
also " Warning " Notices posted conspicuously throughout the 
factory, such as — 

" Crossing." 

" Railway Track." 

" Look Out For Trains." 

" Transporters." 

" Speed Limit," etc. 

A copy of our " Safety Rules " is also posted at frequent intervals 
throughout the works. 

For a considerable time we had great difficulty in educating 
our employees in the use of goggles and respirators. Notices 
were therefore posted, and cases containing goggles and respirators 
fixed in the various departments in which the use of these safety 
devices was desirable, with the result that there is now no hesi- 
tation whatever on the part of the employee in using these, or 
in making application for the renewal of those worn out. With 
this enthusiasm on the part of our employees the efficiency of 
these safety devices has been proved by the fact that there has 
not been a single accident reported since their introduction. 

The question of accident prevention is occupying much atten- 



190 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

tion, and I am sure that, considering the short time the campaign 
has been in vogue, great and satisfactory results will be obtained, 
both as regards accidents through " machinery in motion " and 
accidents arising through other causes. 

I would like to draw attention to some of our permanent notices 
on machines, particularly to one relating to " machine running." 
Many accidents have occurred owing to the machine-minder being 
called away from the machine and leaving it running, and to the 
interference of other employees who had no knowledge of its 
working. All machines worked by young people have a small 
card of instructions fitted into a tin frame, and the operator, after 
having been thoroughly instructed as to the machine's manipu- 
lation and the use of Safety devices in connection therewith, 
appends his or her signature to the card, which is then suspended 
from the machine in a prominent position. In the event of 
operators being moved from one machine to another, the same 
routine is again gone through. No operator who has occasion to 
leave a machine now allows it to run during his or her absence, and 
thus, through the notice under question, the risk of innumerable 
accidents is avoided. Another notice, referring to the question of 
men working on " shafting," is placed on the starting gear by 
the oiler whose duty it is to attend to the oiling of shaft bearings, 
and the person responsible for the starting up of the machine 
makes certain that all is clear before starting up. A warning 
notice is attached to every electric motor throughout the factory. 
In the past, many accidents have occurred in consequence of 
workmen removing guards and neglecting to replace them. The 
warning notices are now placed under each guard, and are not 
visible while the guards are in position. Immediately, however, a 
guard is removed, the notice is quite prominent, and reminds the 
worker of the necessity of carefully replacing the guard before 
starting the machine. We have not had a single accident from 
this cause since the inauguration of these notices.* 

Another innovation is our Waste Campaign. Anti-Waste 
Bulletin Notices have been prepared and are placed in prominent 
positions throughout the factory. Permanent notice boards are 
fixed in all the main passages leading to the different departments, 
whilst portable notice boards are placed in the workrooms, and 
can be moved from one part of the room to the other, so that the 
bulletins are always kept fresh in the minds of the workers. 

Now, from the Divisional Committee all reports and recom- 
mendations are passed on to the General Works Council. 
The General Works Council I wish to describe to you is com- 
* For statistics see next page. 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 



191 



The following Port Sunlight Accident Statistics for 1916 and 191 7 illustrate 
the results achieved by the " Safety First " Campaign which came into 
operation in the middle of 1916. 



Nature of Accidents. 



Slipping, stumbling, falling on floors 

„ „ „ gangways ... 

Trapped in Hand Stamping Machines 

„ Machinery in motion, Winch and Crane 

Ropes and Slings, Belting, etc 

Trapped in Wagon Buffers, etc 

Tripping over Railway Metals 

Self-inflicted through cutting, striking with ham 

mers, etc. 

Falling of tools, fittings, materials, etc 

Scalds and burns from acids, steam, caustic 

soda, etc. 

Overcome by fumes 

Slipping of tools, breaking of lifting gear, rope 

lashings, etc 

Strains and bruises from lifting, stacking, loading 

trucking, etc 



(Many doubtful cases. See below.) 

Giving way of roofing, tilting of staging, etc. 

Splinters 

Protruding nails, etc 

Ironbound boxes, crushing, etc. 

Chippings and filings in the eye 

Other foreign bodies in the eye — as acids, soap 

dust, etc. 



Number of Accidents. 



1916. 



30 
I 
I 

16 

5 



4 

6 

10 

2 



15- 



49 



1917. 



68 



1 
33 



DEGREE OF INJURY. 



1916. 


Fatal. 


Severe. 


Moder- 
ately 
Severe. 


Slight. 


Total 
Accidents. 


Per cent, 
to Total 
Employ. 


Males ! 1 

Females j — 


I 
I 


4 


146 

48 


152 

49 


5*99 

i-66 


1 T 


2 


4 


194 


201 


3-67 


1917. 

Males 

Females 


— 


I 
I 


1 


66 
32 


68 
33 


2-56 
0-89 




— 


2 


1 


98 


IOI 


i'59 



192 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

posed of the chairmen of the various Divisional Committees 
Its meetings are held monthly, and its chairman, in turn, is 
the General Works Manager. Its chief functions are : (a) To 
review recommendations from the Divisional Committees ; 
(b) to review accident recommendations from the Divisional 
Committees ; (c) to consider questions of repairs and renewals 
to the plant and buildings and to prepare estimates of the 
cost of same ; (d) to discuss generally any matter which 
members may bring forward ; and (e) other matters. Having 
expressed its views on suggestions and recommendations 
and added recommendations of its own thereto, the General 
Works Council passes on the various matters to the Works 
Control Board. 

The Works Control Board consists of the Managing Director, 
who, as Director, has special charge of manufacture and 
of the works, with the General Manager and with such of 
the Divisional Managers as may be co-opted. The Control 
Board has full power of adoption or rejection, but if the 
adoption entails capital expenditure over a very small and 
limited amount, the approval of the full Board of Directors 
is required. The final decision having been obtained, in- 
structions to management are given out on forms provided, 
and the work is proceeded with. Awards to the suggestors 
are made annually for suggestions made and adopted. 

In addition to the above committees, there is a system of 
conferences composed of the Head Management, managers, 
heads of departments, foremen, and staff, for the purpose 
of encouraging suggestions and establishing closer co-oper- 
ation between the various departments. The General Con- 
ference sits every four or six weeks, when matters of interest 
affecting the industrial position generally, or the firm in 
particular, are discussed. There has been also instituted a 
system of periodic visits of the foremen and managers of 
each department through the whole of the rest of the works. 
Nothing that has been introduced has given better results 
than that. Many of the foremen and managers only see 
their own department, and in going around other depart- 
ments they make suggestions to the managers of those 
departments as to things they have found useful in their 
own experience, and what they have done in their own 
department in improvements, and they receive many sugges- 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 193 

tions from the departments they are visiting. These visits 
have been an unbounded success, just these little periodic 
visits to the other departments by the foremen and managers. 
The managers, heads of departments, and foremen have 
formed a club called " The Progress Club." This club has 
a room and a special library of technical books and periodicals 
for the use of its members. It meets once a month for 
hearing papers read by the members, and discussion follows. 
The Progress Club is a thoroughly live institution, and has 
justified its existence and name. 

Another institution which the employees have started 
for themselves is the " Co-Partnership in War-time Com- 
mittee." The staff were anxious to do what they could 
during the war, and started this committee to consider on 
what lines they could best work under war conditions. It 
has been a thorough success, on lines similar to the Progress 
Club, but Co-Partners only are eligible for membership. I 
would like, if time had permitted, to say something on the 
great question of Co-Partnership. I am positive it is a 
binding and stimulating force throughout the whole organi- 
zation of business, and represents a very long step in advance 
on the mere wages system alone. 

Now, springing out of Co-Partnership, the firm I am taking 
as an example have had a body of men who have started 
themselves to work on their Co-Partnership motto, which 
is, " Waste not, want not." I have brought specimens of 
the notices of these, but I do not think it would serve any 
useful purpose to attempt to exhibit them, as they would 
not be seen, and, with your permission, I will not do so — 
but these mottoes are very helpful, and they are inspired by 
the Co-Partners themselves. Well, then, there are many 
other institutions, such as Long Service Awards. These are 
intended to encourage men to remain with the firm. The 
staff have got their own Sick, Funeral, and Medical Aid 
Society. There are an Employees' Benefit Fund, a Holiday 
Club, and a Savings Bank, and, with regard to Savings 
Banks, my own ideal, though I have never heard of 
any firm who have put it into practice, is that the wages 
of the rank-and-file worker ought to be paid to his credit 
in a bank in just the same way that the salaries of the 
managers are generallv paid to their credit with their 

14 



194 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

bankers. 1 believe the system of his going to a pay-office 
and waiting his turn and drawing his wages in cash and 
slipping it into his pocket accounts for the excessive spend- 
ing that takes place when wages are high. I believe that if 
the employee's wages were paid into his bank to the credit 
of his own private account, and he had to reverse the pro- 
cess and go to the bank when he wanted money for himself 
or for his wife, he would be inclined every week to leave a 
little in the bank. I have mentioned this suggested method 
of wage-paying to workers, and I find that more than half 
were most favourably disposed to it. The only objection 
I heard was from one man who said, " I like to see my wages 
in my hand." 

Well, now I come to the question of education. The firm 
1 am using as an example had for many years made it a con- 
dition of employment that all young persons of eighteen years 
of age and under, of both sexes, should attend the evening 
classes for certain nights each week. That was found to 
be a failure. Take the case of boys and girls of fourteen 
years of age leaving school and commencing work. They 
have been going to school at 9 a.m., they have had a quarter 
of an hour break for play, have gone home at twelve noon, 
going back again at 1.30 or 2 p.m., with another break during 
the afternoon, have gone home at four o'clock. To take 
them, at fourteen years of age, from such conditions and 
plunge them into work in a factory or office side by side with 
adults, and after working them during the whole day to 
expect these young boys and girls to attend evening classes, 
never was likely to prove a success. They have not the 
strength, and are tired out. They are not then in the mental 
or bodify condition to receive education, and you will not 
be surprised to hear the results were most unsatisfactory. 
So this method has been discarded, and the firm have got 
what they call a " Staff Training College." It was only 
started experimentally this year. Young people under 
eighteen in such departments as the firm are experimenting 
with — and the firm are experimenting with as many as the 
class-room accommodation will permit — take their education 
in the firm's time ; they do not take it in the evening. It 
is hoped in this way to give them a much better education. 
The firm have a great many volunteers from amongst their 



HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE 195 

own staff who are undertaking the teaching, all expenses 
in connection therewith being paid by the firm. 

Now I come, lastly, to what many people would place 
first, and that is the provision of a model village. There 
is much to be said in favour of such welfare work ; but my 
own opinion is that the employer ought never to be in the 
position of landlord to the employee ; still, if the employer 
has to choose between being in the position of landlord and 
the people being badly housed, then the lesser evil is for him 
to build suitable houses and be landlord ; but it is not the 
right relationship. There are various institutions spring up 
in such a village. I would like to give you some statistics, 
which I can readily do, as to the number of births and 
deaths. The death-rate in the village in 1916 was 8 per 
thousand, and the birth-rate 19*55 per thousand; the highest 
rate we had reached before the war for births was 5271 per 
thousand in 1903. So that if one has to choose between 
good homes built by the employer, with a high birth-rate 
and a low death-rate, and the objection to the employer 
being in the position of landlord, I think the lesser evil is 
that he should be in the position of landlord. 

Of all welfare work in factories, a proper apportionment 
of the time is the one that will yield the best results. . 

A six-hour working day would give all that we require 
in production from our workers, so that we can pay to the 
workers the same rate of pay for the reduced hours that they 
receive for the longer hours : it would solve the education 
question for the boy and girl on first leaving school ; it would 
solve the question of physical training ; it would solve the 
question of military training, so that we could have a trained 
citizen army ; and it would solve the question of the outlook 
on life of our workers. 

It was never the Creator's intention to send us into this 
world so many " hands " — He sent us with imagination, 
He sent us with the love of the country, He sent us with 
ideals and outlook, and these are simply stifled under our 
present industrial system. 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 



YOURSELF IS MASTER 

Bolton, December 7, 1917. 

[The address reproduced below was delivered by Lord Leverhulme 
at the Anniversary Meeting of the P.S.A. Brotherhood at 
Maudsley Congregational Church, Bolton.] 

When we have won the war we shall have an opportunity 
that comes after most wars — a period of advancement in 
the social life of the people. Are we going on at the close 
of the war on the same lines, industrially, as we have been 
travelling along for the last century or more before the war ? 
True, we have progressed all the time — shorter hours, higher 
wages, and, coupled with these two, cheaper cost of produc- 
tion. Now, after the war we can make an enormous advance 
forward, and it will depend on how we approach this subject 
whether we are to be successful or not. 

The lesson the Chairman read embodies the lines on which 
all progress is made. If Solomon had asked for money, 
honours, enjoyment, instead of asking for wisdom, he would 
have failed to attain them ; but because he asked for wisdom 
and knowledge, then in receiving wisdom and knowledge 
there followed, as a natural sequence, riches beyond anything 
the world had known before, and honour such as no king 
after him would receive. 

If we approach the six-hour day from the point of view 
of more wages and shorter hours, and see only that in it, 
we shall assuredly fail. But if we approach it from the 
point of view of giving opportunity for acquiring greater 
knowledge, greater wisdom, doing our work in the world 
better and more faithfully for our fellow -men, then we shall 
achieve our end ; and not only shall we have a shorter work- 
ing day, we shall have wages higher than we can dream of 

199 



200 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

to-day, we shall have the cost of production of articles we 
buy cheaper than we can dream of to-day, and, after all, 
higher wages and higher cost of production must go together. 
Increasing wages, as we see in these war -times, are a delu- 
sion and a snare if they mean corresponding advances in the 
cost of articles. Wages become merely nominal. Whether 
we have a shilling an hour or a sovereign an hour does not 
count ; it is what the shilling or the sovereign will buy that 
rules the amount of comfort we shall have in our homes. 
Therefore, we have to consider this six -hour day problem 
from the point of view of increased production by machinery. 
Machinery is bound to be the great factor in cheapening 
products, increasing wages, reducing cost ; and if we can 
so arrange and organize our industrial system that we can 
work our machinery more and obtain a larger output from 
it, then, certainly, we can reduce the hours of labour, and 
not only pay the same rate of wages for the shorter hours, 
but pay higher wages for the shorter hours than we were 
paying for the longer ; but it all turns on the greater use 
of machinery. 

I remember a conversation I had with the late Sir Hiram 
Maxim about ten years ago at a friend's house in London. 
He always took great interest in aviation, and he was strug- 
gling with the problem, as he had previously struggled with 
the problem of his machine gun, known as the Maxim gun, 
and he said to me in his characteristic way : "In trying 
to solve this problem, we can do nothing with a balloon sort 
of machine — one of the lighter-than-air type. That will 
not solve it. We shall require to fly, like the birds, with 
a machine that is heavier than air." (In this he has been 
proved to be right.) " We cannot do that until we can get 
one horse-power for the weight of a chicken." That meant 
ioo horse-power for 300 lb. weight. I read in the paper 
a fortnight ago that the King, when visiting a factory where 
these machines were made, was shown an engine with 500 
horse-power for 600 lb. weight. That is 2| horse-power 
for the weight of a chicken, and so we have solved the problem. 
We had to come to the practical conditions on which every- 
thing depended, the generation of enormous mechanical power 
with light weight, and then the problem was solved. 
We have to set our brains to solve the problem of the six- 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 201 

hour day on the same lines — enormous power in machinery, 
enormously productive power, enormously increased output 
at reduced cost. 

Yes, but some one says : "If you manufacture in all your 
boot and shoe factories and your clothing factories and cotton 
mills as much as the machinery can turn out by working 
for two or three shifts of six horns a day, what will you do 
with all the product ? You will only fill the warehouses ; 
there will be no demand for these extra goods." Within 
this last week I have seen it suggested in a paper that the 
supposed difficulties of the absorption in industrial life of 
five million men who will return from the Army at the end 
of the war would be solved by reducing the output per man, 
or cutting down the number of hours he would work so that 
work might be found for other men. Let us see if that 
suggestion would do any good in solving unemployment. 

Who are the consumers in the United Kingdom ? I will 
tell you who they are. Ninety per cent, of them are the 
workers. Remember that ! The workers are not pro- 
ducing goods to sell to some strange beings who live in the 
planets and have nothing to do with the conditions under 
which the goods are produced. Ninety per cent, of the 
consumers of goods in the United Kingdom are the workers 
themselves. The workers consume (to put this in the proper 
way) 90 per cent, of the goods produced — of boots and shoes, 
clothing, food, every commodity. Ninety per cent, is con- 
sumed by the producers — don't lose sight of that great fact. 
If you raise the price of the goods, the man who produces 
them has himself got to pay that higher price, and if you 
pay out with one hand the higher wages for the smaller 
production at a higher price, then the higher wages are of 
no value ; they buy no more goods than the lower wages 
purchased before. If, on the other hand, you think you 
will absorb these men by reduced output, cutting down 
production to find work for the five million men, the 90 per 
cent, of consumers will have to pay such fabulous prices 
for their goods that purchasing will be out of their reach. 

Perhaps you will say all this can be done by a system 
of taxation of wealth — " Make the rich pay for this." Let 
us see who are the rich, and who are getting the advantage 
of the enormously increased demand for goods of all kinds 



202 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

at the present time. The basi9 of this proposal is that if 
the wealth of the United Kingdom were confiscated, or con- 
scripted, as some people prefer to call it, that course will 
solve the difficulty ; that taking that wealth and conscript- 
ing it and distributing it to everybody, or paying the cost 
of the war with it, will put the matter right. You can scarcely 
take hold of some papers without finding that held as a basis 
for a possible solution of the financial difficulties at the end 
of the war. Now, let us examine this proposal. We have 
the income tax reports published ; and if we turn to those 
for 1913-14, which is the test year before the war and 
upon which excess profits tax is standardized, we find that 
all profits made above those of 1913-14 are subject to muni- 
tions levy and excess profits tax. Take the profits in 
trade. It is quite obvious we must eliminate entirely the 
amount of money that is paid in salaries to managers, fore- 
men, and so on, because even if we conscripted all the mills 
and factories in Bolton and in the United Kingdom we should 
still require managers, still require overlookers, foremen, 
and so on, and we should have to pay them salaries, as we 
do pay salaries now in Corporation and Government oifices. 
We must, therefore, eliminate all salaries from conscription. 

Then, as far as the capitalist is concerned in mills and 
factories, it is perfectly true we might, if we were so stupid, 
conscript all the existing mills and factories, all the existing 
cottages and houses, every form of wealth that is to-day 
in existence. Of course, that is the limit to our power of 
conscription. We cannot conscript the houses we will 
build twenty years from now, because they are not in exist- 
ence, nor the mills, because they are not in existence ; but, 
if it were considered wise, and Parliament passed such a 
law, we could conscript anything that is in existence. But 
the minute that we have conscripted all the mills in Bolton 
they will begin to wear out, and not only would they wear 
out by use, but they would wear out by better spinning and 
weaving and manufacturing methods being discovered. We 
are not going to stand still in the next twenty years. We 
shall see as big advances and improvements in the next 
twenty years as we have seen in the last twenty. Machinery 
that was in existence in Bolton twenty years ago, as we know, 
is getting not only worn out but old-fashioned, and that 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 203 

will be true in twenty years from now. Therefore, from 
the minute capital is conscripted, we shall have to provide 
some fund out of which we can rebuild, repair, renew, and 
reconstruct, for there is no scheme suggested under which 
we can go to mechanics, engineers, carpenters, joiners, and 
bricklayers and say they must build new mills and fill them 
with machinery without receiving wages in the meantime. 
And whether these payments for wages are in money, or 
merely in paper which can be printed by a printing machine, 
and is merely the token of the amount of work a man has 
done, which he can change into the commodities he requires, 
or whatever the system might be, you would immediately 
have to begin and pay out to the men who are building and 
constructing ; and from that moment when you had con- 
scripted all the wealth in existence, you would have to begin 
to pay out, and these payments would have to be charged 
to some fund or other. The money must be raised as a 
loan. To raise this wages fund by direct taxation in the 
year in which the rebuilding and refitting has been made 
would lay an enormous burden upon all the existing workers 
of the country, 90 per cent, of whom, remember, are consumers 
— a burden they ought not to be called upon to bear. By 
calling these loans capital and merely charging interest, as 
we do in a waterworks or any scheme of construction, we 
can defer the payment of that capital until we have the 
income ; and out of that income we can pay interest and 
smiling fund and so gradually wipe out this expenditure. 
So, twenty years from now we shall be back in the same posi- 
tion that we are in to-day, but we ought to be on this different 
footing, that we should have Government ownership of mills, 
factories, workshops, houses, land, etc., and officials instead 
of employers. Instead of what we call the master we should 
have the Government official. If that would be better for 
us, and give better results, by all means let us have it. 

There is no earthly reason why the people of any country, 
and less reason why the hard-headed, sensible people of Great 
Britain, should work under any system other than the one 
that will give them the best results, the greatest comfort 
and happiness and enjoyment of life, and the capacity to 
acquire all that is needed to make a full, complete and happy 
life for the greatest number. Let us see what is meant by 



204 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

some texts you find in the Bible on the subject of 
masters. 

St. Luke says, in chapter xvi. verse 13 : "No servant 
can serve two masters." 

St. Matthew, in chapter xxiii. verse 10, says : " Neither 
be ye called masters : for one is your Master, even Christ." 

St. Paul, in Ephesians, chapter vi. verse 5, says : " Ser- 
vants, be obedient to them that are your masters according 
to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your 
heart, as unto Christ." 

I make no claim to be able to expound Bible truths, but 
I am convinced of this, that there is not a verse in the Bible 
that has been written carelessly, thoughtlessly, or at hap- 
hazard, and that if we cannot see thoroughly the meaning, 
that is our short-sightedness, not the error of the Bible. 
When we come to read that no one can serve two masters, 
and that we have to serve our masters in fear and trembling, 
I think we must link them to the true master and employer, 
ourselves as consumer. I am confident St. Paul was not 
a man who would ever go in fear and trembling of any other 
man ; and I am certain he never intended a servant should be 
in fear and trembling of any other man, whatever position he 
was in. St. Paul fought wild beasts, and faced every danger 
and difficulty, and he never intended that any one should 
work in fear and trembling of another man — never ! There- 
fore, St. Paul was merely cautioning all servants as to the 
inevitable results of their own acts on themselves. Well, 
he said that. The other verse says, " One is your Master, 
even Christ, and ye are brethren." Have we not just agreed 
that 90 per cent, of consumers are working men ? There- 
fore, there are not two masters — the employer and the con- 
sumer — but only one master, who is the consumer ; one 
servant, who is also the consumer, and over and above all 
there is Christ. 

You will, perhaps, think I am a master and, perhaps, that 
men who are working for the Company of which I am Chair- 
man come under the description of servants. Think a little 
more deeply for a moment. There is not a man in this room, 
not one in this church, who has so hard a taskmaster over 
him as the so-called masters have. So far as this world is 
concerned, the master of every employer of labour in Bolton 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 205 

and in the United Kingdom is the consumer. You can see 
this every day. Articles go up in demand, and the enter- 
prise that produces such articles is flourishing. Then the 
consumer ceases to demand that article, takes to something 
else — and the man who, as employer, was prosperous and 
successful is reduced to the Bankruptcy Court, and is as 
much discharged as the so-called servant. Take any em- 
ployer's case, and imagine an article that is being made at 
his works, and that the consumer ceases to demand ; it is 
as much a dismissal of the employer as it is the dismissal 
of the workman or servant. 

There is not a master in the United Kingdom to-day who 
has not a supreme master over him in the form of the con- 
sumer. The so-called masters have to consider the consumer 
and consult the wishes of the consumer or their business 
falls away and they have no opportunity of employing any one. 
Therefore, you cannot serve two masters. You are your 
own masters as consumers and must fear and tremble for 
the result if you do not serve yourselves faithfully as con- 
sumers. If you are to serve " ca' canny " as master, reduce 
output as the way to make for prosperity — you can't so attain 
success for yourselves as consumers. It is impossible. The 
servants, as consumers, are the masters, and it is for the 
consumers to say on what basis they will have an article 
supplied. If the consumer can truthfully say, " It will 
give me better and cheaper goods to have Government officials 
going round looking after all factories," then let the workers 
as consumers and the consumers as workers equitably arrange 
for all the factories in the country to be put on that system. 
I say, " By all means." The consumer is the master, and 
if he thinks that will give more and better commodities at 
less money, give greater enjoyment to life, not only will it 
not be possible to prevent such a course being taken on fair, 
honest lines, but it would be wrong to oppose it. But if 
we are to get all enjoyments and wealth that life can 
yield, we must first, just as did King Solomon, ask for 
wisdom, because only as wisdom is granted us shall we 
realize our aims. 

Take the position of two men who are held up to public 
odium before this country, especially the first of them, and 
in the great country across the herring-pond, the United 



206 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

States. Take Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company, 
and Carnegie. If any man has been held up to odium for 
a long time it is Rockefeller, and, in a lesser degree, Carnegie 
and other men. They were not born capitalists ; they 
began life with nothing but ideas. Rockefeller's ideas were 
these : He saw single oil wells, single pumping stations, single 
refineries for single oil wells, and the oil had to be filled into 
barrels and high freightage had to be paid on the railway 
to the point of distribution. And this young fellow had 
the idea that he could refine oil better and cheaper than that, 
and organize pumping stations much better than that. If 
he had a group of oil wells and a central refinery to refine 
for many wells, and if he could do away with casks and lay 
pipes from the oil refineries to carry his mineral oil, as we 
bring water to Bolton from Belmont, and save freightage, 
and so on, he would have made a tremendous advance. Then 
he had an idea that he could build tank steamers and convey 
his mineral oil across the Atlantic to Liverpool without the 
cost of barrels. 

By putting all this into execution he made his fortune, 
on the only basis that fortunes can be made, except gambling 
fortunes — and it is rare that a man who makes a gambling 
fortune dies a rich man, because gamblers are dealing with 
something that is not adding to the value of the goods they 
are handling, and are depending upon their brains being 
a little smarter than the brains of other people ; and when 
one man sets his brains for smartness against the brains of 
his fellow-men he always goes under. But when a man sets 
his brain to see how he can serve his fellow -men better, he 
becomes a rich man in proportion as he serves his fellow- 
men. Rockefeller made a fortune on the only lines fortunes 
can be made, by cheapening his product, and in time the 
oil came to be reduced in price from one shilling per gallon, 
when he commenced, to fourpence per gallon, as it was before 
the war. In the process he made his fortune, and if he had 
lowered his price still more it would have been no advantage 
to the world, because he was already making the pace very 
hot for other producers, and, indeed, it has been said against 
him that he ruined many people in the process of lowering 
prices. If he did ruin any one, he did so on the same lines 
as we have all seen many men ruined in life, by their own 






EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 207 

neglect and love of ease. When I was a wholesale grocer 
in Bolton, I knew, when I saw a customer coming into his 
9hop in carpet slippers at eleven o'clock in the morning, what 
to expect. It is always the same. Such men grumble 
at some one who, they say, is ruining them. They never 
think that their carpet slippers are the cause of their ruin. 
If we carry ourselves back to the days of the first cab, the 
men who carried the sedan chairs no doubt said they were 
being ruined by the cab, and we have seen cabs ruined by taxi- 
cabs. There has always been an absorption by other in- 
dustries, and the consumer has always greatly and enor- 
mously benefited, far in excess of either temporary incon- 
venience or real hardship that may have been suffered by a 
section. 

Then take the case of Mr. Ford. As you know, he was 
a farmer, but with some bent for mechanics. His mechanical 
ambitions got so strong with him that he told his wife he 
would give up farming, go into Detroit, and see if he could 
put an idea into effect for a motor that would deal with the 
work on a farm. He gave up the farm and went to Detroit, 
and engaged himself at a quarter or less of what he had been 
making on the farm, and worked long hours to get to know 
all about motors and electricity. After a while he was run- 
ning a motor-car of his own amateur make about the streets. 
His wife grumbled when she knew he was working in a shed 
until three o'clock in the morning and had to be at his work 
at six o'clock. But he won through. To-day we hear 
criticisms that when he is making rive millions sterling a 
year he is making too much. It is said that twenty-five 
million dollars for any man is too much. True, the people 
who say that agree that he pays double the wages paid by 
his competitors. He starts a boy from school at £i a day, 
because he will not have any one at less than £1 a day. 
He sells his motors cheaper than they can be made by other 
makers of motor-cars, and for their price Ford's cars are 
wonderfully good cars. 

You have seen that the master of all so-called masters 
is ourselves as consumers. It is a fact that we are the 
employers of our masters. It is the consumers' benefit that 
must be considered, and only that ; and if there is any better 
system than the present one we ought to have it. The 



208 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

world ought to have it. The present system is this : The 
man has his Union, a necessary and important and successful 
organization; the Union arranges the rate of pay for which 
its members shall work, and the general tendency is, and 
always must be, for increasing rates of pay. Therefore 
the workers, the consumers, say to the employers: "We 
will only make those goods which we consume on the basis 
that you pay the highest rate of wages we can get anywhere." 
The workers are engaged on those terms, but when the workers 
go to buy the goods they have been producing, every good, 
careful, and thrifty housewife in Bolton says to the person 
who is distributing the goods, " We will only buy the goods 
that are made and sold the cheapest. We are not going 
to buy goods from the manufacturer who charges the highest 
prices, even if he pays the highest wages. We demand 
the highest wages and we equally demand as our right to 
spend those wages where we can buy the cheapest goods." 

This is the present economic position. On these lines 
we ought to strive for a six-hour working day, because by 
working our machinery for two or three shifts, and there- 
fore a greater number of hours, we can undoubtedly produce 
cheaper goods. And we ought to organize for a six-hour 
working day, because the reports on the health of munition 
workers show that after a certain length of time spent at 
work the output decreases as soon as fatigue is present, and 
that the output increases by the reduction of hours so long 
as work can then be carried on without fatigue. We want 
only 33J per cent, increase to make it possible for each of 
us to produce as much in six hours as in eight, and that 
is less than the average scale which has been shown to 
be possible. 

With shorter hours we can have better education. From 
better education springs the wisdom which was asked for 
by Solomon, and our children and children's children can 
receive, under a properly organized system of a six-hour 
working day, as good an education as can be given to the 
children of the master. 

So you will see that in a few generations a great, healthy, 
strong, and ambitious race of men would be produced who 
could help to control the industries in which they worked, 
but all this can only be realized by wisdom brought about 
by education. On these lines, working with wisdom, after 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 209 

a generation or two, there could be a complete revolution 
in our industries. We know that the consumers are the 
masters, that wages must advance along with cheaper pro- 
duction and increased purchasing power. All this can be done 
with a six-hour working day, which will give the worker 
leisure for two hours a day to devote to education ; and by 
working on these lines we can achieve a condition of pros- 
perity in this country by increased wages, reduced cost of 
production, and more leisure for enjoyment of all things 
likely to add happiness to the workman as to the master. 
On these lines, keeping reduced cost of production steadily 
in mind, we can have an England and an empire spreading 
throughout the world, founded on lines that are so wise and 
practical that poverty becomes unknown, unemployment is 
never heard of, goods are produced in increasing volume 
at lowest price, and happiness reigns supreme. 



15 



II 

FAST ASLEEP ON A GOLD MINE 

Bolton, December 5, 1915. 
[On revisiting Bolton and addressing, as on other occasions, the 
Mawdsley Street Congregational Church P.S.A. Brotherhood, 
Lord Leverhulme recalled that he was born in the town, 
and that his father, who settled there as a young man, was 
a worshipper at the Mawdsley Street Church. He said :] 

You are, perhaps, wondering why I chose the subject 
for this address — " Fast asleep on a gold mine." You are 
quite right if you say, " What does he know about gold 
mines ? " Well, I don't know much about gold mines, 
I must confess it. And yet I feel that there are men who 
unconsciously are sitting on gold mines and are unaware 
of the fact. 

Some say all the great men died years ago. Don't believe 
it. There's not a word of truth in it. There are finer young 
men in England to-day than ever there were in the past. 
We are not like potatoes, with the best of us underground 
and only wurzels on the top. I believe each age produces 
its right quantity of the very best. It is only that we should 
take the right view and bring the best that is in us out. 
Everything is possible to the young man. It is only for 
himself to decide what course he will take. No, the danger 
in good old England is that we are inclined to belittle the 
young men, and the young women also. And the danger 
to all young men and young women is that they think too 
much of this belittling. Throw it aside, disregard it. You 
know that lack of encouragement is the greatest stimulus 
that a young man can have applied to him. You remember 
the story of Lord Beaconsfield. When he first spoke in 
the House of Commons they would not listen to him. But 

310 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 211 

he was not discouraged because he was belittled. He told 
them the day would come when they would have to listen 
to him ; and it did come. After all, it is only a matter of 
how we take these rebuffs. 

Let me give you an illustration of what power we have 
over ourselves. If we had a furnace in this building, and 
two rods of iron and some brimstone, I could show you this 
experiment. I could take one of the rods of iron and make 
it white hot in the furnace, and if I then plunged it into the 
brimstone, it would turn to slag and be useless. If I took 
the other rod of iron and made it equally white hot, and then 
put it on an anvil and struck it with a hammer, I could beat 
it out, and then, if I made it hot again and plunged it in cold 
water, I could harden and temper it and make it a piece of 
iron that would do good service for any use iron can be put 
to. Let us learn to despise those who would belittle us, 
and learn to hate pity and sympathy and coddling. If 
we want people to be praising us, saying kind things of us, 
it only enervates us. We are not a parcel of blind puppies, 
wanting warm blankets to keep us from perishing, but men 
and women every one of us. 

You will remember the story of the Irishman who, every 
now and then, used to take too much whisky ; and when 
he had had too much whisky he thought he was going to 
die. About three o'clock in the morning he would wake 
up certain he was going to die, and would send for the Catholic 
priest. The priest got a little tired of this trapesing out 
at three o'clock in the morning to a man who was only 
imagining he was going to die, and decided he would not 
go again. But when the call came again he said, " I had 
better go, it may be something serious the matter." So 
he put his Bible under his arm and off he went through the 
rain at three o'clock in the morning, and when he got there 
Pat said : " Oh, Father, I am going to die this time ! Look 
at the rats crawling all over the bed, up the curtains, and 
all over the walls ; I shall never live till morning." " Why 
did you send for me?" said the priest. " It's not a priest 
you want ; it's a fox-terrier." Believe me, any one who 
wants sympathy and pity and to be coddled up is weakening 
himself or herself. When we are determined to go our own 
way, and believe that way to be right, it is not sympathy 



212 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

and pity we want, it is a fox-terrier to shake us up. Oppor- 
tunity will come to each one of us ; and don't let Fortune, 
when she knocks at our door, find us asleep. We are every 
one of us — myself, perhaps, the greatest sinner in this 
respect of all— fast asleep on some gold mine or other and 
don't know of it. 

I remember my first visit to Australia in 1892, two years 
before this P.S.A. was inaugurated. Whilst there I heard 
of a wonderful gold mine — Mount Morgan. A farmer owned 
the site for a farm at first. It was not very good land and 
never had done much as a farm. One day a man came 
along and thought he detected on the farm traces of gold, 
so he went to the farmer and said, " This is not much of a 
farm ; I will give you £600 for it." Well, £600 does not seem 
much for a farm of over 100 acres, but in Australia you can 
get land given to you free, and if you have enough money 
to move your things you are all right. So the farmer said, 
" All right, I sell." The farmer was farming to make money. 
That was why he was in the business. That was his object 
in farming ; and when he sold the farm, he sold it because 
he didn't think he could make money on it. He had not 
found it easy to make money on it. The man who bought 
it thought he saw gold, and it would be easy to make money 
on it. With pick and shovel, the land being his own, he 
digged down and found his ambitions confirmed, for the rocks 
contained some gold. Another man came along and said 
'• Look here, I will give you £6,000 for it." Well, a profit 
of £5,400 and only a week's work put in, he thought he would 
have it ; so he said, " All right." The man who paid £6,000 
delved deeper still and found more gold ; and a syndicate 
came along and said, " We will give you £60,000 for your 
mine." Well, £60,000 is a lot of money, and he took it. 
When I was there the mine had been floated for £600,000, 
and the £1 shares were £10 each, so it was worth six millions. 
That farmer wanted money when he had it at his feet. 

I will give you another instance. There is an island in 
the Pacific that was the property of a firm in Sydney. It 
was not much good to them ; only a few coco-nut trees that 
would not yield much profit. They sold it ; but before 
they did, one of the captains of one of their small schooners 
visiting the island had picked up a rock, and he brought 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 213 

it home for some reason or other. When he got to Sydney 
it was carried to the office, and the people at the office used 
it to keep the office door open on warm days. One day a man 
coming in from Sydney University nearly fell over the stone, 
and picked it up and looked at it, and said, " Where did you 
get this from ? " They replied, " It came from Ocean Island, 
in the Pacific, one of the islands we used to have." " Do 
you know what it is ? " he asked. " No ; it is rock." " I 
think it is phosphate. If you will allow me to take it, I will 
analyse it." It proved to be the richest phosphate the 
world had ever known, and the man who had sold the island 
for a trifling few hundreds of pounds had in his possession 
an island that contained some thirty or forty million tons 
of phosphates, each ton worth £2. But he didn't know it ; 
he was asleep on it. 

There was a young fellow in America, brought up on a 
farm with his father, but he didn't think much of farming, 
so he went to a University. He was a clever, bright young 
fellow, and he passed his examinations and was appointed 
to one of the junior professorships at £3 a week. He 
thought he had passed his old dad tremendously. He decided 
to take up the study of mineral oil, the oil from which paraffin 
and petrol are made, and he took it up. He became expert 
in it, and because he had specialized on this subject the 
University gave him a chair, specially dealing with mineral 
oil, and he got £10 a week — 50 dollars a week. His father 
died, and without going to look at the farm, he sold it. The 
new man who came in looked up the stream. The old man, 
to water his cattle, had had to put a plank across the stream 
at the point where it came gushing out, to take off what 
the old man called the "scum," because under the scum the 
water was clear and good. He put a plank to clear the 
scum off. The new-comer found the scum was mineral 
oil, the very thing that the young man who was born on the 
farm knew all about ; but he did not know there was mineral 
oil gushing out of the earth on his father's farm. He had 
been fast asleep when he was at the farm. He had never 
gone up the stream to see where the cattle were watered ; 
he had never seen the plank which took the scum off. That 
farm and the oil became worth over twenty million pounds 
sterling. 



214 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

You will find that money is required for every good work 
that is done in the world. I hear some one ask, ". Can any 
one, as a Christian, devote his mind to making money ? " I 
say '■' Yes \ " " But surely not a religious, Christian young 
man ? " I say again, " Yes ! " 

Here comes in the confusion of thought. Money-making 
and a good life are said not to be in accord ; the suggestion 
is that you can take your choice of one or the other, but you 
can't have both. That is a wrong impression about life, 
responsible for the idea that the strong, virile young man 
is not so religious as the weakling. The fact is that the 
opposite is the truth. Religion is not a sickly sentimentality 
or the practice of a maudlin mutual admiration society. Reli- 
gion is not solemnity, but solemnity is stupidity. 

A strong belief in God and the Bible, and the everlasting 
struggle to live a better life, are the mark and sign of true 
manhood. Without this belief and this eternal struggle 
after the good, a man will be hindered and crippled in all he 
undertakes. The weakling is the man who gives up the 
struggle for good. All have sinned, but the unpardonable 
sin of all is to give up the struggle for good. Do you think 
any one believes the worse of Paul because in his youth he 
was Saul ? Not a bit of it. He stands higher because of 
the fact that he was once Saul, than if he had always been 
Paul and never had the experience of Saul. Ridicule turns 
the weakling, but cannot turn the strong. Ridicule has 
been directed against those who attend P.S.A.'s, Sunday 
schools, churches and chapels, and it is hard to stand against 
it. In my opinion, it is easier to fight in the trenches against 
the enemy than to stand the ridicule of friends at home. 
Ridicule has been truly described as " The icy cold north 
wind, endurance of which makes men into Vikings." 

The fact is that the foundation of business success and 
of Christianity are the same, and that foundation is service 
for others. In rendering service to others, money is the 
most effective means of removing our limitations. You 
are, no doubt, saying and thinking you would have been 
glad to have helped to make some life happier, but you had 
not the money to do it. But let me say' right here, you 
must not think money is the only essential to doing good. 
I have said nothing of the sort. I say money will relieve 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 215 

your limitations, but you can do good without money : you 
can do good in anything you set your heart to do, if you 
are not limiting yourself by saying, "It is impossible for 
me to do it — I have not the money." 

I hear some say, " What chance has a man in Bolton of 
finding a gold mine, or a phosphate mine, or an oil field ? 
None at all. But because of that it does not follow you 
have not better chances and better opportunities than all 
of these three added together. It is our duty — every one 
of us — to make money, as much as it is our duty to worship 
God and love our fellow-men. "What!" you say; "is it 
the duty of a Christian to make money ? " And I say " Yes." 
You reply that the Bible says money is the root of all evil. 
I read the Bible somewhat, and I have never found that 
in the Bible yet. If I challenged you, you would, I have 
no doubt, be able to turn up the page in your Bible, chapter 
and verse, where you think you have read that money is the 
root of all evil. But you will find what the Bible does say 
is, " The love of money is the root of all evil." But there 
is a great difference between the two. It means that making 
money — holding on to it — hugging it to our hearts, as we 
would our God, is wrong, and is the root of all evil. Yes ; 
but if making money is right, and you want to make money, 
you will have to pay the price. That is necessary in order 
to get money. 

We know that everything in this world is said to have 
its price, and, believe me, the price that you have to pay for 
money-making is within the reach of every boy or man in 
this room. It is not outside the reach of any one of us. It 
would be grossly monstrous and unfair, and I would not 
myself believe in a Deity who could treat His children so 
unjustly and unfairly as to make money-making possible 
to some and impossible to others. It is within the reach 
of every one of us, it is a gold mine on which we are every- 
one asleep — but we have to pay the price, which is hard work 
and self-sacrifice. I know this sounds an anti-climax ; 
but, believe me, in whatever form you look at money-making 
you will have to make a great deal of self-denial — give up a 
great deal and sacrifice indulgences. But there is nothing 
in fife worth having to be got at any cheaper price, and we 
can all pay it. Think of that. There is money to be got 



216 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

at a price that is well within the reach of every one of us. 
Some of us in this chapel may never have a chance to right 
for our country. We are past the fighting age, maybe, 
or medically unfit ; others may be unable to go for other 
reasons. Some women who attend this church may never 
have the chance to be a Florence Nightingale or a Miss Cavell, 
but all of us can make money, much or little, and do some 
good with that money. 

I heard recently of a noble act, only this last summer, 
in connection with the Red Cross Society. Two young 
ladies in London, daughters of wealthy parents, decided that 
for their summer holiday they would go into Wales. They 
were amateur artists. They had no need to paint, but they 
decided they would paint pictures of Welsh scenery, and 
then they would put their work up for sale for the benefit 
of the Red Cross Society. In a letter I received last week 
I heard they had jointly made over £500 for the funds of 
the Red Cross Society by the sale of their pictures. They 
sacrificed their pleasures, they sacrificed their indulgences in 
many ways and worked hard ; and, as a result, they got this 
money, which will help towards the care of some wounded 
soldiers, and do such an amount of good that it could not 
possibly be the root of evil. 

But I think some of you say, " We never get the chance." 
I have heard that said by so many — by school teachers. 
"What chance has a school teacher of making money? " 
Do you know, one of the richest dry-goods store men in America, 
who died a multimillionaire, even in English terms, let alone 
dollars, was a school teacher when he began life ; and his 
first venture in trade was to buy 1 dollar 50 cents worth of 
goods, and he lost 87I- cents in selling it. He determined 
to make another effort, but he did not buy on his own judgment. 
He went from door to door and inquired what people wanted. 
Then he set to work to buy articles so as to sell at a profit. 
He considered public wants in order to make money ; in 
other words, service for others, for that was what it amounted 
to. I have heard shopkeepers say they cannot make money. 
I would like to ask any such, " Have you ever studied what 
your customers want, or taken a kindly, fatherly interest 
in them—inquired after them if they are ill, or tried to help 
them in any way ? Have you made yourself indispensable 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 217 

to them ? If you have not, you cannot make money out 
of them. You only make money out of people when you 
have made yourself indispensable to them. 

I hear a shop assistant ask what chance he has of making 
money. There are scores of the wealthy men in America 
and in Europe to-day who started life as shop assistants, 
and who would answer the same as I, that the basis of their 
life was service to others. They made themselves indis- 
pensable to their employers. That was the stepping-stone 
to their wealth. Mechanics — what chance has a mechanic ? 
Ford was a mechanic only a few years ago, but he has rendered 
a service to mankind in producing a cheap and, at the price, 
a good car. He rendered a distinct service to the whole 
civilized world, and the world poured its money on to him. 
It is said he makes five millions sterling a year. He has 
earned it by rendering service to the people. Office-boys 
— every rich man in America was an office-boy, from Carnegie 
downwards. No, let me say right here, at once, our jobs 
are all right ; there is no fault with the job. We ought 
to remember that man himself has always been the best part 
of the opportunity. The secret of success is no secret at all. 
Will a man pay the price of success ? That is the point. 
That is all there is in it. There is only one certainty — hard 
work and self-sacrifice and service for others. It must be 
hard and unflagging, persistent work ; the self-sacrifice and 
surrender of indulgences. 

Hard work and self-sacrifice must be so practised as to 
become habits. Some think hard work may kill a man. 
It never did so in this world. It is a good habit, is hard work, 
and it is bad habits that kill. The basis of all business 
success is hard work combined with service. It is not suffi- 
cient to say, when we are serving a customer, or whatever 
we are doing, " That will do." That is not the question. 
The question is, " Is that right ? " And only when we aspire 
to that, determined that whatever we are supplying shall 
be the right article supplied in the right way, shall we succeed. 

How many young men there are who believe that if they 
are punctual in attendance at the shop, the factory, or the 
office ; if they do their work fairly well, so as to escape censure, 
keep honest and respectable, they have paid the cost price 
of success. There are millions who are willing to pay this 



218 THE SIX HOUR DAY 

price, and bidding this price every day. But the hammer 
never comes down to one of these bids. Success is never 
knocked down to that sort of bidder. They say they do 
everything they are told to do, and ask what more they can 
do. To occupy the position we are in counts for nothing. 
Success alone can be found in the way in which we fill the 
position. 

Yes, but some say, " There is no advancement for me ; 
my employer does not appreciate me." What a false idea ! 
What does it matter about your employer at all ? Never 
mind your employer. Do more than you are obliged to do, 
and better, and be independent of your employer. If he 
will not appreciate you — and there are employers who can 
be as fast asleep on the gold mine of a good assistant as on 
any other kind of gold mine — some other employer will. 
Make yourself indispensable to your employer, and be inde- 
pendent of him, and then you will be wanted, either by him 
or by a better man. But only then will you be wanted, 
and only when you are wanted can you make money. What- 
ever your job may be makes not the slightest difference. 
It is our business, each of us, to make ourselves indispensable. 
That is the gold mine. 

Yes, and some say, " I am short of capital. I could do 
all sorts of things if I had capital." Don't believe a word 
of it. Who are the men in the big world beyond who have 
capital ? They are the poor, penniless boys of forty or 
fifty years ago. Now, having made yourself indispensable, 
try to find out the wants that are not yet filled, and don't 
be afraid of competition. Believe me, it is only by finding 
out these wants that we can succeed. 

Don't be afraid of competition, for there is one great rule 
in this universe — the law of resistance. We are apt to think 
we would do very much better if there were no resistance. 
It is not true. Remember that none of us could walk if 
the ground did not resist the tread of our feet ; we could 
not bicycle if there were no resistance to the muscles of the 
leg in pedalling the bicycle ; we could not fly in a flying machine 
if the air did not resist the spread of the wings of the 
machine ; the ship that sails on the water only sails to the 
extent of the force of the wind it is able to resist ; the steamer 
only progresses through the ocean because the water resists 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 219 

the propeller or paddle ; we can only row in a boat 
because the water resists the stroke of the oar. If the leaves 
of the trees and of the plants did not resist the rays of the 
sun, there would be no flowers ; if the drum of the ear did 
not resist the sound-waves there would be no hearing ; if 
the eye did not resist the rays of light there would be no 
seeing. I could go on repeating the value of resistance 
ad infinitum. Do not think competition, then, is hurtful ; 
without competition we cannot succeed. There is no growth, 
no life, no progress, without resistance — merely stagnation. 
It is the struggle with resistance that makes a man 
strong, virile, and successful. A life without resistance 
is a life of ease — ignoble and leading to poverty and rags. 
If we take the right view, righting with resistance can 
only help us. Resistance is good and brings opportunity ; 
resistance is life. But if the forces of resistance overcome 
our strength, they can only do it momentarily. The struggle 
against them increases our strength, and by that struggle 
we so increase until, finally, we can overcome resistance 
and succeed. The worst about our failure is not the failure 
itself, but the oft-time effect of failure on ourselves ; the 
important thing is never to give up, but to keep on with 
our ideal aim persistently and perse veringly. 

Is success worth the price ? That is for each man to 
decide for himself ; and what, after all, is the final achieve- 
ment ? — happiness. We are all in this world for happi- 
ness ; our life was intended by our Creator to be one long 
span of happiness. All this effort, if it brings us happiness, 
has put us severally on a gold mine that will give us riches 
that we never dreamt of. John Bright said, " Happiness 
is a congenial occupation, with a sense of progress." There 
is a world of truth in that. I have always thought, also, 
this, the description of the happiest day in his life, given by 
a distinguished man, is the finest picture of happiness you 
could conjure up. He said, " When I took my bride home 
to' the house I had furnished, and taking her by the hand, 
said to her, ' Darling, every piece of furniture in this house 
I have worked hard to buy, and it has been bought with 
my savings, the result of my work, darling ; it is here, and 
in future it is ours, it is yours and mine, and we join and 
share together in it ' " — that, he said, was the happiest 



220 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

day of his life. Why ? Because that was the nucleus 
of the home he had worked and struggled for. The man 
who has made and saved money and can say this, and has 
won the love of a woman worthy of such a home and of such 
a man, has found a gold mine which will yield money and 
happiness beyond the dreams of the wildest imagination. 
Such a home is the living temple of the soul, in which nothing- 
vile or unworthy can endure ; and out of such a home come 
opportunities for good and service to others, which is the 
purest metal of the richest gold mine the world has 
ever seen. 



in 
VICTIMS OF EDUCATION 

Liverpool, October 29, 1917. 

[Whilst regarding education as the root and basis of all national 
progress, Lord Leverhulme is a severe critic of the past and 
present errors and misdirections of the public education 
system of this country. It was with these that his address 
to the Liverpool Literary and Philosophical Society was 
mainly concerned.] 

We are spending forty millions to-day sterling in this country 
on education, out of the public purse, depleted already, and 
with so many demands now coming upon it ; and I am not 
sure that we are quite satisfied that we are getting what 
we are entitled to get from this expenditure. W T e have no 
clear aim and objective in our educational system ; we are 
not preparing our boys and girls for their after-vocations 
in life ; and firms in Liverpool, I am sure, would bear me 
out in saying that boys and girls who come fresh from the 
Board School are, practically, almost raw material, and 
have to be made fit for their situations almost as much as 
was the case forty years ago or more, before we had the present 
elaborate educational system. Now, what do we mean by 
an uneducated boy or girl, or man or woman ? I believe 
that really what we mean when we make use of this phrase 
is simply a person without book knowledge. The boys and 
girls before 1870 were educated for their business, but they 
had no book education. Now, the so-called uneducated 
person may be superior in knowledge of the rules of life, 
superior in knowledge of the moral laws, superior in common 
sense, but if that person is not book-learned, he will be called 
uneducated. Are the boys and girls, after nine years in 
Council and Board Schools, going to be worthy of the descrip- 



222 THE SIX-HOUR DAT 

tion " educated " ? What smattering of knowledge they 
will have gathered will be of little or no help to them, except 
to enable them to read a daily paper and a " penny dreadful." 
You know what Herbert Spencer said of our Education 
Act after it was passed. He said it was " a measure for 
increasing stupidity," and one of our great statesmen of 
the nineteenth century, Lord Melbourne, said that " cir- 
cumstances were the best education," and that all great 
men had been educated by circumstances. And a cynic 
has said that the key to all our difficulties in the United 
Kingdom (and this best explains our difficulties in education) 
is " imbecility." 

Now, our special imbecility in education affairs has been that 
we have left ourselves too much in the hands of scholastics. 
The scholastic builds his edifice on book learning. With 
these men the belief is established that mankind knows 
nothing except what it has learned out of books. In any 
case, they act as if they believed that ; whilst most of our 
best education — the best education of every one of us in 
this room — we never get out of books at all, but in the daily 
affairs of life. An unread ploughboy or mechanic can put 
many scholars to the blush with his knowledge of life and 
of many matters that are of vital interest to the well-being 
of the individual. We know that many bookworms are 
veritable ignoramuses, and many so-called uneducated persons 
— uneducated, that is, in book learning — may be veritable 
encyclopaedias in all the affairs of life. We worship book 
learning to the summit of adulation. Yet what can it help 
us ? Except in painting and sculpture, everything practical 
in the way of handicrafts is despised. We despise a boy 
who, at fourteen, is earning his own pocket money; we 
admire a boy who, at fourteen, is writing Greek plays. And 
as to our daughters — the daughter who is earning her own 
living is, to-day, almost considered scarcely an eligible future 
wife ; and whilst our sons who have taken a University 
degree and have adopted, say, the medical profession or 
the legal profession would be welcomed in every house as 
eligible and desirable future husbands, the girl who has 
adopted a profession, however high the University degree 
may be that she has taken, does not receive invitations to 
house parties, and does not receive invitations to receptions, 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 223 

" At Homes/' and garden parties, because she is not quite 
in the <f Class." Yet every man or woman who has attained 
to any eminence has supported himself, or herself, more or 
less, according to his or her necessity, from very early in life. 

Our whole system of education is carried on, as I said at 
the beginning, without aim or objective. In fact, the Edu- 
cation Act was passed without any scheme of a national course 
of training to fit the scholars for their after business-life being 
prepared, and, as far as I know, no proper and complete 
system of national education on those lines is even in existence 
to-day. 

The cry has been for a ladder to reach from the Board 
School to the University ; but there has been no asking of 
questions as to what vocations in life are in want of men 
or women who have had a University education. Why, 
to-day, there is a greater demand for craftsmen than for 
University men ; there is more demand for girls as cooks 
and housemaids than as graduates from Newnham. A 
chauffeur or a skilled mechanic will often command a higher 
salary, with more constant employment, than an M.A. or 
B.A., or a Senior Wrangler who is merely a book-educated 
man. We owe more to the craftsman than to the mere 
scholar or bookworm, yet we still act as if books alone were 
the only training for the intellect. We educate our students 
to depend on books, and as practical units in after-life they 
are in less demand than the chauffeur or the artisan. Do 
not think for a moment that I am ridiculing book learning. 
I would regret sincerely if you interpreted that as what I 
have said ; but I am pointing out, and desire strongly to 
call attention to, our failures through having no definite 
system of training for vocation in life, so that we may, as 
far as possible, get better results in the future from our edu- 
cational system. 

The cure is not less book learning but some practical 
application of book learning. It is not book learning that 
we must scrap — it is our vague wool-gathering aims and 
objectives that we must scrap. A boy or girl Board School 
scholar, and man or woman University student, who have 
been well taught from books will make, if taught to apply 
the knowledge so gained, superior craftsmen, or business men, 
or housewives. May,, I give you an illustration from elec- 



224 THE SIX-HOUR DAT 

tricity of what the idea exactly is that I wish to convey ? 
Suppose we consider education as, say, equivalent to an 
electric current. For transmission you must have a copper 
wire : for the transmission of education you must have book 
learning. If with electricity we worship only the trans- 
mitter, what use would electricity be to us ? But take 
that copper wire that acts as transmitter, with the electric 
current running through it, then cut that copper wire, connect 
the two ends by a fine wire, and you will find that that fine 
wire will glow with heat. You have produced heat. Now, 
cut again the wire in another place and attach to it a carbon 
filament lamp, and you will find you have produced light ; 
cut again in a third place, and suitably connect the two ends 
with what is called a motor, and you will find you have pro- 
duced power ; but there was neither heat, light, nor power 
until you made the break from the transmission. So in 
education, you must make a break from book learning to 
actual practice. The current of book learning must be 
applied to definite ends and aims within the powers of utility. 
We should get nothing out of the electric current if we had 
vague ideas as to its application for heating, lighting, and 
power ; and so it is with book learning. 

Now, the United States and Canada — if I may give you 
a definite illustration of applied education taken from those 
two countries — show the greatest interest in agricultural 
education. In England the total number of students study- 
ing agriculture is under two thousand ; and yet agriculture is 
our greatest industry of all, and employs more persons than 
any other single industry. We have our Universities full 
of book students ; how many have been studying Forestry ? 
Yet we have millions of acres of waste land awaiting re-afforest- 
ation. We are giving the same Board School education 
to the sons of dwellers in towns to fit them as mechanics, 
carpenters, or labourers for work in factories as we give to 
the sons of dwellers in villages to fit them for the farm. Now, 
if education is to pay the nation for the forty millions a year 
it costs, then it must have a practical bearing on the after- 
school vocation in life, otherwise education can only make 
victims of scholars. We are sometimes inclined to ask 
ourselves the question on this point— we do not really in 
our hearts and minds believe it possible-— but still we ask : 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 225 

Are people less efficient by book education ? Often it seems 
to a business man that the University-trained man makes 
less use of what brain he has than does a so-called uneducated 
man. Edison, the great inventor, filled his laboratories 
with University-trained men ; and yet no one was more 
fond than he of showing that this University knowledge 
had to be applied practically, and that University men were 
lacking in the practical application of their knowledge. On 
one occasion he took an electric candle, such as we have here, 
and he handed it to a man who had taken the very highest 
degrees in mathematics at one of the Universities. " Now," 
he said, " just calculate for me the cubical contents of this 
bulb." There you see a bulb overhead, and how it tapers, 
and it is not an easy thing to calculate. Well, this man 
took several hours, and covered several sheets of paper with 
calculations, and finally brought the result to Mr. Edison. 
" No," said Mr. Edison, " you are at least 10 per cent, wrong." 
Well, the man went back and calculated all over again, but 
could arrive at no different result ; so he came again and 
rather insisted that he was right. " No," Mr. Edison said, 
" I know you are at least 10 per cent, wrong ; let me have 
the bulb." Edison took the bulb ; he took a common 
plumber's diamond, cut round the projecting glass point 
at the end, gave the end a tap and it fell out, leaving the 
bulb as a cup or bottle. Edison then took it to the tap, 
filled it with water, poured the water into a beaker, read 
off the cubical contents, and did all this in a minute, and 
the record proved that the man was, as Edison had said, 
10 per cent, wrong. Now, that University man, with the 
book learning, had his whole brain on calculations. The 
practical man would know nothing about calculations. Edison 
had not had a University education, and in trying to think 
of the cubical contents, he made the bulb into what you 
might call a cup or bottle, and then measured what water 
it contained. 

|So, after a certain point, what we want is not mere book 
learning, but more practical training and education. It is 
well known that nothing is so fatal to thought as continuous 
reading. In handicraft, the mind can follow its own train 
of thought, and notorious in English history has been the 
deep thinking of the village cobbler, and his great influence 

16 



226 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

on village politics, all springing from the practical use of 
his hands, his eyes, and his brains. Working these together 
he could think better and clearer. It is said that the late 
Sir Hiram Maxim discovered the principle of using the recoil 
of a gun to place the next cartridge in position, in what is 
known as the Maxim gun, when out shooting one day with 
an old gun that kicked badly. The principle of the 
safety-valve was discovered by a fourteen-year-old boy, 
whose duty, for which he received his wages, was to watch 
the gauge of a boiler, and, when the gauge recorded a certain 
pressure of steam, to pull a string which opened the safety- 
valve and reduced the pressure, and let the record on the 
gauge go down. He wanted to go away and play, and 
he arranged a series of weights to take the place of his hands 
on the cord, and he found that when the steam got to a 
certain pressure it would lift the weights, and allow the steam 
to blow off, and so he was able to go and play marbles. I 
only mention this to show that the brains of each of us — 
I am convinced of this more and more every day I live — 
are like, say, this room ; you have to have some light in this 
room before you can see anything, and our brains require 
some stimulus outside to set them to work, and they respond 
immediately to the stimulus. The stimulus to Sir Hiram 
Maxim was the kick of the gun ; the stimulus to the boy 
was the desire to go and play marbles with his companions ; 
that stimulus would not have come by reading about guns, 
would not have come by reading about pressure of steam ; 
it came by the actual experience of life. 

The educated who are nurtured on books alone are the 
victims of education, and not the efficients of the nation. 
And how do we arrive at our final gauge of the book-edu- 
cated man ? The final acid test of book education is an 
examination, and if the student passes this examination 
he receives the hall-mark of College or University, with an 
assortment of letters added to his name. But what about 
the great world outside ? The late Sir Alfred Jones told 
me himself that he would not have a University man in his 
office. I argued and debated with him because, at the time, 
I intended to send my own son to the, University, which 
I did, and have never regretted it, and I thought that the 
only point was the question of application. I argued that 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 227 

a University-trained brain, if it applied itself to business, 
must be a superior brain to the untrained brain of a man 
who has not had a University training ; but there is no 
sequence from the passing of these examinations to the pro- 
gress in after-life. Senior Wranglers have often proved 
the biggest failures of all amongst those who have gone 
through Universities. Do you think that passing examina- 
tions gives us what the nation wants in our Civil Service ? 
Could you pick out, by any system of examination in their 
youth, future Sir Alfred Joneses, or Thomas Ismays, Andrew 
Carnegies, or Cecil Rhodeses, H. M. Stanleys, or Nelsons, 
or Wellingtons ? An examination would not help us in 
any of these, yet we worship the results of examinations. 
But private firms, as far as my knowledge goes, have never 
adopted the examination system of entry into their business, 
or for a seat on their Board of Directors. No, the injustice 
of our education is that it does not look beyond the cram- 
ming with book learning ; that it victimizes the student 
and condemns him, or her, to an after-life of hard and toil- 
some drudgery, merely because the learning has not been 
applied to a definite object, such as I mention in the illustra- 
tion of the electric current, of either heat, or light, or power. 

Now, when the Franchise Bill was passed in 1869, we were 
told by a statesman it would now be necessary for us to 
" educate our masters " ; but, instead of training and edu- 
cating, we are producing an untrained, uneducated boy or 
girl, who leaves school at the age of fourteen, and we, 
naturally, are not satisfied with our product. 

We are beginning to find the wisdom of the poet Pope, 
who wrote : — 

A little learning is a dangerous thing; 
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring : 
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain. 

And an ancient saw runs : — 

Who are a little wise the best fools be. 

Now, how can we find a remedy ? It is perfectly useless 
in any affair of life to call attention to what one believes 
to be an evil without at any rate making some attempt to 



228 THE SIX-HOUK DAY 

apply a remedy There is no remedy in evening classes 
In a business I know it was made a condition of employment 
that all young persons between fourteen and eighteen years 
of age must attend evening classes. The parents consented 
and it was tried for many years, but it was not a success, 
and the reason is obvious. You take a boy and girl of 
fourteen from school, and what has their previous life been ? 
They have gone to school at nine o'clock, they have had 
a quarter of an hour's break in the forenoon and gone home 
at twelve o'clock ; they have come again at one-thirty or 
two o'clock, had another break in the afternoon and gone 
home at four o'clock, and immediately on leaving school 
you take the boy or girl and you put him or her in a works 
or office. They are working alongside adults and working 
the adult hours. You do not say to the adult, after a hard 
day's work, " Go and attend an evening class " ; but you 
say to these immature, growing boys and girls that you want 
them to give three evenings a week to evening classes for 
the improvement and development of their brain. Neither 
their brain nor body is capable of receiving education under 
such conditions. 

So we must seek for some other remedy, and the remedy 
is not easy to find. There is such a great variety of in- 
dustries in the United Kingdom that what might suit one 
industry would not suit another ; but I do not think that 
that should be any reason why we should not apply a system 
to such industries as it might suit, and which would include 
the great bulk of the people such as are employed to-day 
in factories and workshops. Whilst it is true that agri- 
culture is the greatest single industry, it is not true that 
agriculture employs the most people, for in all the variety 
of factory work the aggregate runs into many millions more 
than in agriculture alone. Now, in factories you have 
two elements of production : you have the mechanical 
utility, the engine and the machine, and you have the human 
being, commonly called " hand," as if a human being could 
be without a soul and have no horizon or outlook in life other 
than the machines they are tending — a brutal description 
which must be made impossible. Now, at any rate in fac- 
tories where we have mechanical utilities; we know that 
we could work these mechanical utilities, with a little extra 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 229 

oil, a little quicker wearing out perhaps, a little extra atten- 
tion, continuously for twenty-four hours each day. But 
the strength of the human being is limited, and it is limited 
not only because of its physical capacities, but it is also 
limited because a human being must have something more 
in life than merely working for a living. It must not be a 
question of a whole life passed in work to produce and buy 
food, washing, and lodging, then sleeping to prepare for the 
next day's work, with no view of green fields, no time to 
read books and elevate the mind — that is a feature in modern 
industries that cannot be tolerated. Now, in the employment 
of mechanical utilities our great burden of expense is interest, 
depreciation, repairs, and renewals ; and before I come to 
consider the human element, suppose I just deal with these 
four items of expense in connection with mechanical produc- 
tion, because we must be aware of this great fact — whatever 
hours are worked in British factories, we are in competition 
with the whole world, and we cannot maintain our enormous 
export trade, nor, indeed, can we produce for the people 
in the United Kingdom a sufficient supply of boots, shoes, 
clothing, and houses unless each individual can produce 
to the total of his capacity. 

We exchange and barter, in one form or another, the 
labour of one individual with others, and if the people in 
the United Kingdom who are working in factories were to 
produce less, then, obviously, there would not be enough 
for themselves, to say nothing about others. We must 
consider the output, and, I believe, it is equally an axiom 
in economics that we have got to consider the price of the 
output. If we do not, then, however much wages advance, they 
will purchase no more boots, shoes, clothing, and houses than 
the lower rate did when these were all cheaper. We must 
continually aim to cheapen the product, for cheapening of 
product increases the demand for the product ; it increases 
the wages of the producer two ways — first, in actual cash 
and, secondly, in purchasing power. Any reversal of that 
process, whatever increase there may be in wages, reduces 
the purchasing power of the wages and leaves a wage-earner 
worse off. Now, I want us to accept that because it is vital 
to the points we have got to consider ; but I want us to accept 
it with a knowledge of what benefit we can get from mechanical 



230 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

utilities. First of all, wages are the highest in the countries 
that have the most mechanical utilities in proportion to the 
people ; that is to say, wages are the highest in the countries 
that have the most capital invested in the mechanical utili- 
ties in proportion to the population, and lowest where these 
conditions are reversed. 



IV 

GIRLS AND BOYS 

Bolton, October y, 1916. 

[Lord Leverhulme, addressing the Girls' Side of the Bolton School 
at their Prize Distribution, subjected the traditional views 
on the relation of the sexes in education to the fresh thoughts 
of a practical man.] 

This School has been founded without any idea that it was 
a work of philanthropy, or any nonsense or humbug of that 
kind. I have never found that dukes ever objected to 
send their sons to Eton, Cambridge, or Oxford because they 
would be receiving an education that was not entirely paid 
for by the school fees. All they ask for is good education, 
and for the rest — whether the endowment goes back to the 
time of Edward VI or not — this does not raise any difficulties 
for the Duke who is sending his son to school or college. I 
w T ant to make it quite clear that the education of the Bolton 
School can be accepted without any sense of humiliation 
on the part of very wealthy parents, and without any sense 
of patronage by less wealthy parents. 

Why do not boys and girls always attend together in the 
same school building ? The opinion is that the mentality 
of girls and boys is not identical ; the same ideals are not 
applicable to the teaching of boys and girls, except in certain 
classes. It is a mistake to separate scholars and to put 
the students in separate buildings for girls or boys. In my 
boyhood's days girls and boys were taken at the same school 
up to a certain age, and I attended a girls' school myself 
until I was eight or nine years of age. But I want boys 
and girls to be educated at the same school together up to 
a much higher age than that. I have always argued to 
myself that if it was ever intended that the sexes should not 

231 



232 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

be mixed there would be families consisting entirely of girls 
and other families consisting entirely of boys. Mrs. Smith's 
babies would be always girls and Mrs. Brown's babies always 
boys, but not both boys and girls in the same family. Those 
families are better, and the children grow up better, where 
there is a mixture of boys and girls. You can always tell 
if a boy has had a sister or if a girl has had a brother, because 
the influence of one on the other has been for good. I have 
felt that if the Bolton Grammar School and Bolton High 
School pupils could be brought together it would be of advan- 
tage. I think there are many classes, such as drawing classes 
and science classes, and certainly the classes for music, 
where, with advantage, the two sexes might be educated 
together in the same class. You may depend upon it, it 
is perfectly healthy, natural, and sane for the two sexes to 
meet together in this perfectly natural way. Girls and boys 
played games together in my younger days. There was one 
game called " tig." I don't know whether you have that 
to-day ; and there was another called " rounders " which we 
used to play. One of the girls, who afterwards became 
the wife of my oldest friend, was the best runner of any 
of us. I met my own wife in that way. Boys and girls 
were brought up together and played together.. That is the 
most natural way — through games and schooling, in a 
perfectly healthy way — for the sexes to meet together. You 
may depend upon it that in bicycling, motoring, in sketching 
parties, and in many other ways, this perfectly natural 
affinity is seeking expression. 

Now, what is the object of the School ? We have here, 
in the United Kingdom, and the British Empire generally, 
the finest material in the world, and Lancashire is second 
to none in its possession of the best of that material. There 
is not any town in Lancashire superior to Bolton. Here, 
then, we have the best material with which to commence. 
The idea is to give to the boys and girls an equipment, an 
education, which will prepare them for the battle of life 
and to take their places in discharging all the responsibilities 
and duties that will await them in after-life. In doing this 
we feel we shall be giving them a broader and more enlightened 
outlook on all affairs and on matters connected with their 
native town of Bolton, so that the future generation of Bolton 



_ 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 233 

will be the better able to take advantage of all that science 
and discoveries are daily placing within our reach, if they 
have only got what we commonly call the " nous " to 
seize it. What we are to-day we owe to yesterday, and 
those who lived then entrusted to us this great work. What 
we are to be to-morrow depends upon what we do to-day. 
W T ith this retrospect and with this way of looking forward 
we can set our hands to work on this task which we have 
undertaken. 

The war will make great changes. The war will not leave 
England as it found it. England will be a different England 
for the boys and girls in this room from what it has been 
for us w r ho have lived most of our lives before the war. This 
war has discovered Woman. W T omen are in evidence every- 
where, engaged in hundreds of useful and honourable occu- 
pations, and discharging their duties excellently. It was 
never imagined prior to the war what women could accom- 
plish in other work than was then open to them. We are 
proud of the work undertaken by all classes of women 
in England to-day in this great war. I often wonder 
what those grand dames, who danced in Brussels on the eve 
of the Battle of Waterloo, would have said could they have 
seen their great -grand-daughters and great -great -grand- 
daughters doing the work the women of England are engaged 
in to-day. They would have been shocked at the idea of 
women working side by side with men without affectation 
— easily and naturally — in munition factories, and making 
shot and shell to kill the enemies of their country. It is a 
grand work, and it is also grand to be engaged in taking care 
of the sick and wounded, a work which is being well discharged 
by delicate girls, and by matrons, and by those who are no 
longer young. The whole nation is working together in a 
way that could not have been possible in either the Crimean 
War or the great Napoleonic wars, because the ground had 
not then been prepared by education. We owe all this 
response and patriotism to the passing of the Education 
Act of 1870, but even education to-day is not as good as 
we would have it, although superior to any there was in this 
country at the time of any of the preceding wars. We are 
reaping, in the advancement of this war and the victory 
which is surely, if tardily, coming, the results of a better 



234 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

educated England than ever before. We want to extend 
that and to see in the years to come that we shall not fall 
behind. 

This war has taught us that, however valuable material 
Education may be, its function of most value is to teach us 
to think aright, and to realize that success in life depends 
most of all on character, and that unless a high character 
and high ideals are aimed for in Education, it may even be 
a curse rather than a blessing. 

The old idea of women has got to go ; woman has to be 
the companion and helpmeet of man, as was originally 
intended, and it can only be done if she receives an equal 
education in every way and an equal equipment with 
man. Our ideas are very much mixed on this subject. 

It is admitted by every one that they have an equal right 
to earn their own living, and so long as they earn an honour- 
able living and follow an honourable career they have a right 
to choose for themselves. A brother and sister decide, 
say, to enter some profession, say that of a doctor ; both 
are equally well educated and take equally high degrees 
at their respective Universities. Similarly if they had each 
chosen commercial careers. Well, somehow we feel that 
when the young man has launched himself on a professional 
or commercial career which may lead to great distinction, 
he is a very fine fellow indeed. Our ideas about his sister 
are not quite the same. 

The young man is received everywhere. Fathers with 
marriageable daughters are glad to receive him at their 
houses, and the mothers give him equally flattering welcomes, 
whilst the sister will be coldly received everywhere. Society 
admits her brilliant ability, her cleverness and efficiency, 
and that she has a perfect right to enter a profession and earn 
her own livelihood, but does not want her to do so. The 
modern young man nowadays without definite aim and calling 
in life is looked on with contempt ; whilst the woman who 
has a definite aim and calling, and is earning her own living, 
is despised and neglected socially, and finds that few invita- 
tions ever reach her. We are not so backward, perhaps, 
as the Japanese, who, when a girl baby is born, hang over 
their door a doll ; or as the Chinese, who do not consider 
women quite human beings, but who believe that if a woman 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 235 

is a good woman, she will after death be allowed to return 
to this world as a boy baby, and so, as a man, become a human 
being. 

It is perfectly true that the destination and goal of the 
majority of girls must be the home, marriage, and the house- 
hold cares that come upon them in their position as mothers 
of the household ; but it is equally true that a girl has a 
perfect right to choose whether she will adopt that career 
or another, and she ought not to be under the slightest 
reproach if she has chosen contrary to the majority of 
girls. If it is a career which gives distinction, then she 
should be able to win for herself distinction. In all these 
careers there will be a dozen openings and a dozen out- 
stretched hands to welcome a brother, whilst there will 
scarcely be one opening or one outstretched hand to 
welcome a sister. Women are, for instance, absolutely 
prohibited in law from practising at the Bar. This will 
all have to disappear after the war. We cannot, as we 
have done, accept it as vital to the existence of this country 
that a woman can go into a munition factory and yet not 
be fitted to become the head of a business. It is no wonder 
if woman does sometimes fail to make a success in business. 
Method, regularity, and system in doing the daily task are 
also rare in men as well as rare in women ; but it is to the 
advantage of the State that they should occupy whatever 
position they are best fitted for. The bringing together of 
the two sexes will make in this direction. The war will clear 
out all preconceived ideas on this question. And the Bolton 
School will, without doubt, take a prominent lead in the good 
work of education, and of nationalizing a clearer, more 
definite, and wiser recognition of Woman's true position 
and equal right with men to full opportunities for useful, 
intelligent, efficient, and honourable service for the Empire 
and Humanity. 



V 
OUTPUT AND INTAKE 

Bolton, August i, 1917. 
[The text of old sermons on thrift was : " Take care of the pence, 
and the pounds will take care of themselves." Lord Lever- 
hulme, in an address on the Annual Speech Day at Bolton 
School (Boys' Division), announced a more vital principle, 
which may be summed up in the motto : " Make the best of 
your output, and your intake will grow of itself."] 

I will tell you a story of a benevolent old gentleman who, 
coming home one day, saw right in front of his house an 
overturned load of hay blocking up the road. A boy about 
the size of one of you was trying to get the hay back into 
the cart. The gentleman said to the boy, " Have you to 
put all that hay back into the cart ? " " Yes, sir," said the 
boy. " Have you had your dinner ? " asked the gentleman. 
" No, sir." " Well, then, come inside and have your dinner. 
You will work better for it." "I don't think my father 
would like it," replied the boy. '* Oh ! your father would 
not mind. Why should he mind you having a good dinner ? " 
Then he took him into the house and gave him a good dinner. 
After dinner he said to the boy, " Now, just you have a 
walk round my garden, and then you will be ready for your 
work." " Please, sir, I don't think my father would like 
it," said the boy. " Oh ! your father won't mind. He will 
be glad for you to do it. You have a walk round." And 
the boy did. On his returning to the house the gentleman 
said, " Now, I have a nice book here. Just look at a few 
pictures, and then you will be ready for your work." " But, 
please sir, I don't think my father would like it." " Oh ! it's 
all right, I am sure your father will not mind. But what 
makes you keep saying you do not think your father would 

286 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 237 

like it ? " " Please, sir, he's under the hay." Well, boys, 
every father is under the hay, and must be until his son 
eases his burden. 

The future of the nation depends on the boys and girls, 
and I am quite certain it is still more true that the future 
of the boys and girls depends on the nation. Don't you 
think so ? I do. You can accomplish much more than 
the grown-ups can. I have travelled a good many thousands 
of miles in the Congo I am very fo^nd of the Congo. I 
like the elephants and other animals there, and I am delighted 
with the stories the natives have there. The most excellent 
folklore stories I have heard have been in the Congo. I 
will tell you one. It is a Congo tale, and you must remember 
that the people there are in the same state of civilization 
as the people of Bolton were a hundred thousand years 
ago. They are in the Stone Age. They know little or 
nothing about metals, but they know a good deal about 
fighting. Nations learn that very early. 

The story is about a hen which was sitting on a nest of 
eggs. One day she left them for a walk round, and when 
she came back a serpent was coiled round them. The poor 
hen did not know what to do. She could not get the serpent 
off, because every time she went near the serpent hissed. 
So she went to the elephant and asked him to drive the 
serpent away. The elephant came with his big feet, but 
when the hen saw him she said, " Oh ! you go away, you 
will break my eggs ; go away ! " She then went for a buffalo. 
The buffalo came along with his big feet, and she saw that 
he, too, would break the eggs and sent him away ; and she 
went for the giraffe and all the other big animals in turn. 
But it was just 'the same in* every case : she was afraid of 
their big feet breaking the eggs, and they all went away in 
disgust. Then a tiny ant came out of the ground and said, 
" Let me try." " You try to drive the serpent away ! Not 
a bit of it." " Well, let me try," said the ant, " it will do 
no harm." " No, it is only a waste of time if the elephant 
and the buffalo and the giraffe cannot do it." " Well, let 
me try," persisted the ant. " Very well, try," said the 
hen. So the ant went back to the hole out of which it had 
come and gave a signal. Ants came out of the hole in swarms 
and went all over the serpent and stung it and nipped it and 



238 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

pinched it. And the serpent, in order to get rid of them, 
went away. 

You can do many things we grown-ups cannot do. I 
want you to remember how you can do them. You can 
accomplish anything you want only in one way, and that 
is by doing your best. A boy who has done his best has 
done everything, and a boy who has not done his best has 
done nothing. I do not care if he has taken prizes here this 
afternoon : if he has not done his best he has done nothing. 
If the boy who has not won a prize has done his best, he has 
done everything. It is only by doing the task we have 
to do to-day that we fit ourselves for a bigger task to-morrow. 
Some people say there is so much chance in life. I dare say 
there may be something they call chance. I do not know ; 
but a great English poet of about four centuries ago, Gas- 
coyne, said a boy had better never be born than be un- 
taught. Think of that. I think it was true. And it is 
truer to-day than ever. 

Do you know what the teaching you get here is like ? I 
will tell you. If you take a trained boy and an untrained 
boy, they are, if I might compare them, like a workman 
with tools and a workman without tools. The trained boy 
is the workman with tools. He has got them. He may 
use them or he may not, but he has got them. It is like 
the Cadet troop we have been seeing this afternoon. I am 
sure the School is proud of the Cadets and of the Boy Scouts, 
and I congratulate their officers. You know perfectly well 
that all this training is for a definite purpose. The boy 
without education would be like a soldier without a weapon. 
It is no good going into war if you have not the right weapons. 
A boy without training would be merely like a soldier going 
to war without weapons. Of course, having got them, it 
depends upon us how we use them. Why take these books 
we have given out to-day ? If you have not been trained 
how to read a book and how to assimilate a book, they will 
be no good to you. 

Have you ever been to a circus ? I used to love a circus. 
I dare say they don't come to Bolton now ; but when I was 
a boy, at Christmas and New Year and other times, there 
used to be Wombwell's and Bostock's and' Mander's Mena- 
geries and a circus or two, and I used to love to go to them. 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 239 

I used to watch the acrobats swinging on parallel bars and 
doing all sorts of wonderful things. It is all only a question 
of training. I believe any of us could do it if we had the 
training, though I should not like to start training for them 
now ; but any one can do those things if they start training 
at the right time. There is nothing marvellous about it. 
The curious thing is that when we see a conjurer or an acrobat 
we think he is doing something marvellous. It is all training, 
and you can be trained by Mr. Lipscomb and the masters 
to do far more wonderful things than that. 

There are many people who think a college education, 
or a University education, is not comparable to practical 
experience in the cotton factory, at business, or in the office. 
Well, I hold the opposite view r . The better the training 
he gets, the better the man will be for all positions in life ; 
but, of course, we need to have the practical knowledge 
added to the theoretical. 

I will tell you an amusing story of Edison. He never 
had a University education, and every now and then he 
delights in showing a University man that the practical man 
is superior. On one occasion he took an electric light bulb, 
and said to his most highly trained University man, " Tell 
me the cubical contents of the bulb." Well, it looked about 
as impossible as squaring the circle — pear-shaped tapering — 
and he had to tell the cubical contents of it. Well, this 
man, who had taken high degrees in mathematics, got sheets 
of foolscap and covered them with calculations and figures 
and, eventually, took the result to Edison. " No, you are 
at least 10 per cent, wrong," said he, and the young man 
went back and worked it out again and again, getting the 
same result, so he was inclined to argue. Edison said, " I 
know you are about 10 per cent. w T rong. Give me the bulb." 
He took a plumber's diamond for cutting glass and cut round 
the sharp point at the end of the bulb and then knocked 
it off. Then he filled the bulb with water, poured the water 
out and measured it, and in something less than two minutes, 
he knew the exact contents of the bulb, and proved his assistant 
wrong. Of course, the man was thinking merely of calcula- 
tions ; he had not got his brain settled on the practical side. 
There were many other ways of ascertaining the contents 
besides calculations. He might have submerged it in water 



240 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

and seen what it displaced, allowing for the thickness of the 
glass. The point is that you should always try to think 
beyond the book you have learned. Don't assume the book 
method is the only method, but try to think of another. 

We talk about the circumstances of life. There are two 
great elements in life — one is power and the other is circum- 
stance. Now, there is in a boy or girl the greatest power 
the world knows — that is life, a power greater than the steam 
engine, or electricity, or hydraulic power. But this power 
has a great tyrant, and that is circumstance. Even from 
the tiny seed you can learn a lesson. Botanists will tell 
you that when a seed lies on the ground, especially certain 
seeds, they can be carried by the wind ; they will not attach 
themselves to the soil until they get to soil that suits them. 
That is a well-known fact. They roll along with the wind, 
but as soon as they get on soil that suits them they settle 
down and make the most of it. That is the control over 
circumstance ; so circumstance is not such a great tyrant 
after all. We have a say in what we are going to be. Each 
of you boys is thinking of a career in life, and preparing for 
it, and learning such lessons as will help you in your future 
career, and having settled it, you are going to anchor your- 
selves down. I know you are. 

Do you know that one of the most tremendous cumulative 
forces in this world is the power of persistence ? Settle 
on a plan and persist in it, and every year it gains in power 
and weight until finally it becomes irresistible. All this 
training will have a definite effect upon you, and it will lead 
you to something greater. I suppose if we dig down 20 feet 
under where we stand we should come to a stratum of clay, 
or something that is exactly the same as it was twenty thousand 
or a hundred thousand years ago. That has not changed, but on 
the surface here there have been all sorts of changes. Look 
how many changes have taken place even in your lifetime. 
Why ? Because there have been men here in the good 
old town of Bolton who have been developing it all the time. 

Many people think success in life — the greatest success 
in life — is a question of intake and no output. Get all you 
can and stick to it — that is the way to succeed in life, they 
think. You might as well try to run a cotton-mill on the 
principle of all intake and no output ; it would soon come 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 241 

to an end. This good old town of Bolton, whilst the clay 
20 feet below the surface has not changed, has gone through 
all the changes of thousands of years of history. Why is 
Bolton so much a better town to-day than ever before ? I 
will tell you. It is because Bolton has been supplying the 
wants of people in India, China, and all over the world, and 
in supplying the wants of others Bolton has acquired the 
means of making a better Bolton, leading a happier life, 
a fuller and more complete life. I was in Japan four years 
ago, and I went into a cotton-mill there, and there was 
machinery made in Bolton. Sending out machinery from 
Bolton, and doing something for other people, is what has 
made Bolton what it is. The invention of the spinning 
mule by Crompton, making machinery by Hick, Hargreaves, 
and Dobson & Barlow's, and cotton goods by Barlow & Jones, 
and other firms. That will apply to every one of you. It 
will be by making yourselves wanted, badly wanted, that 
you will succeed. 

I know many people believe that it is capital a man wants 
to start him. Believe me, there is not a single large firm 
in the United Kingdom that is short of capital. They can 
get all the capital they want. But there is not a single 
large firm in the United Kingdom that has got all the best 
men it wants, the men they want to pay big salaries to. 
There is plenty of capital ; no trouble about that, but the 
greatest trouble and difficulty is filling up their staff with 
the men who can draw the biggest salaries. I do not mean 
that there are not men who would like to draw them, plenty 
of such men. But drawing a big salary means earning 
more than you draw. That is the output. The intake 
is the salary, but the output must be greater. It is the same 
all over the world. A friend of mine in America says he 
has on his list three positions vacant, for each of which he 
can afford to pay 100,000 dollars a year salary, and he cannot 
fill them. If he wanted 100 million dollars for his business 
he could get it without trouble, but he cannot get three men 
capable of earning 100,000 dollars a year each. Bear that 
in mind. Never mind about the salary — that will be seek- 
ing you all the time if you are worth it. Never mind 
about capital — you will never be short of that if you are 
worth a big salary. It is the difference between output 

17 



242 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

and intake which has made the good old town of Bolton 
prosperous beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors of 
a century ago, and it is as applicable to every boy and 
girl here as ever it was in Bolton. It applies to every 
one of us. 

I want to say a word now to the teachers. I want you 
to remember that boys need so much encouragement, and 
it is in your power to fix in the minds of these boys the highest 
ideals. In business we take stock periodically, and in taking 
stock we have a debit side and a credit side, and so show 
whether we have made a profit or loss. That is an excellent 
plan, both in business and in every other walk of life, in- 
cluding your boy pupils in this School. In taking stock 
of your boys in school, why not put all the drawbacks and 
disadvantages on one side ? There is not a single boy in 
the world of whom you can say everything is in his favour. 
On the other side put all the good points that help, and when 
that is done by teachers they will find that the predominant 
characteristic in human nature is goodness. The predomi- 
nant element in boys' nature is goodness, and it is for the 
teacher, by pulling out the right stop — not the same stop 
for every boy — to appeal to his ambition and ideals and 
to elevate the boy to the highest pinnacle. 

Might I say a word to parents ? I don't think parents 
quite realize, and I don't think boys and girls do when they 
are children — I know I didn't — the enormous influence that 
passes from parents to children. It is in the power of parents 
to encourage the boys and girls when they come home, and 
make their task easier. A boy came home one day from 
school, and it was obvious that he had been badly caned. 
His father looked very severely at him and said, " You have 
been caned." "Yes, father." "Well," said his father, 
" you must have been doing something wrong and deserved 
it." " No, father, I didn't," said the boy. ' You must 
have," the father insisted. " No, father, I didn't." " Well, 
what was it for ? " " Well, father, you remember me 
asking you, last night, how much a million pennies was ? " 
" Yes," said his father. " And you said it was a devil of 
a lot ? " " Yes." " Well, the schoolmaster says that 
is not the right answer, and he caned me for it." When 
the children come and ask these questions I dare say it is a 



EDUCATION AND BUSINESS 243 

nuisance, but a little encouragement at the time will reap 
the biggest harvest that can be reaped. 

I am very proud to have been here. It has been a very 
great pleasure to me. It always is, and I feel that under 
Mr. Lipscomb, and the masters and the Governors, the future 
of this School is being laid on solid foundations, that it will, 
every year, add to the future prosperity of the good old town 
of Bolton, by producing the type of citizen who will be proud 
of Bolton, proud to help Bolton and of whom Bolton will 
be proud, and who will look with pleasure on the days they 
passed at the Bolton School. 

Now, boys, I want you to remember some poetry. Can 
you learn it ? See if you can remember thi9 : — 

Some ships go East, and some go West, 
Whilst the self-same wind doth blow ; 

For it's rudder and sail, and not the gale, 
Decide where the ship shall go. 

Nor wind, nor gale control our fate, 

As we journey along through life ; 
It's the set of the soul decides the goal, 

And not the calm and the strife. 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 



INDUSTRIAL ADMINISTRATION 

Liverpool, November 8, 1916. 

[Having spoken so often, and out of such long and successful 
experience, on the subject of Co-Partnership, Lord Lever- 
hulme devoted the speech here presented to those basic prin- 
ciples of industrial administration which cannot be ignored, 
even under the most harmonious scheme, without entailing 
serious limitations to the expansion of industries and actual 
curtailment of both wages and profits. Incidentally, he 
grappled with the great Trade Union question of " restriction 
of output." His audience was the Liverpool Social Problem 
Circle.] 

The answer to the question, " What is the employer's 
position at the present time ? " depends, like the answer to 
so many other questions, upon the point of view that this 
position is regarded from. You will remember the story 
of the painter who was explaining to his sitter for a portrait 
that he could only paint his portrait as he saw the sitter, 
to which the sitter promptly replied, " But, unfortunately, 
I can only see my portrait as you paint it." However, I 
may, perhaps, better answer the question by adopting the 
answer given to the question, " Is life worth living? " — the 
answer to which was, you will remember, that " It all depends 
upon the liver." If the employer's liver is out of order he 
is apt to take the view that " the times are out of joint. " ; 
and it is not impossible, under similar circumstances, that 
the workman, even when working in good conditions of em- 
ployment, might, if he was told, as was the Irishman, that 
he could not do too much for a good master, give the answer, 
" No more will I." However, we shall all agree that to-day 

it were wise if both employer and employee examined 

347 



248 THE SIX-HOUK DAY 

their relationships in the past and looked well ahead into 
the future. 

And the first point in the near future that will present 
itself to both will be the consideration of after- war conditions. 
The experience gained by both employer and employee during 
this war makes it impossible for either to resume work after 
the war with conditions quite the same as they were when 
the war broke out. For one thing alone, the war has added 
nearly one and a half millions of income-tax payers to the 
previous number who came within the net of the Chancellor 
of the Exchequer, which of itself is a revolution. This 
increase in numbers is not only the natural effect of lowering 
the limit of exemption, but mainly, as far as is ascertainable 
at present, from actual increases in wages and salary. This 
is a grand fact a.nd, if the employer can take a far-sighted 
view, is an immense gain to the strength of industrial 
production. 

Statistics of incomes and income-tax payers, when care- 
fully examined, reveal this great truth, that to bring a larger 
body of wage-earners within the scope of the income-tax 
collector has the undoubted tendency to increase the efforts 
of each to earn a larger income out of which to pay the 
tax. Equally, every raising of the rate at which income tax 
is levied has been followed by increased efforts, successfully 
made, to increase incomes out of which to pay the increased 
tax. Therefore the effect of placing one and a half million 
additional income-tax payers on this higher platform has 
been to place an increased number of employers and em- 
ployees side by side as income-tax payers, and give them 
one common object to strive for, viz. to maintain and to 
increase incomes. We are all inclined to say, with the Irish- 
man, " Be jabers to the tax, if you will give me the income," 
and having got the income, we are all inclined to make increased 
efforts to make the income sufficiently large to stand the 
contribution demanded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
in the form of income tax, without diminishing the balance 
remaining for the income earner. 

To ensure the highest degree of efficiency in plant, machinery, 
and all the mechanical utilities required' for production 
and distribution, the employer requires good profits ; and, 
equally, to ensure the highest degree of efficiency for em- 






SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 249 

ployees, high wages and reasonable hours of employment 
are necessary. Good profits for the employer enable the 
prompt scrapping of old plant and machinery, and the in- 
stallation of better equipment, to be successfully accomplished. 
Equally, high wages and reasonable hours for the employee 
react in increasing the physical and mental tone and effi- 
ciency of the worker. Therefore, the tendency of modern 
conditions is to bring the interests of employers and employees 
nearer and nearer together, if these interests are rightly 
understood, but not otherwise. 

And what are the problems to be faced ? The biggest 
problem the employer has to face, and one that is always 
present with him, is to surround himself with a permanent 
efficient staff, happy and contented in their employment, 
who will not only work for him, but, what is much more 
valuable, will work with him. I knew a manufacturer in 
America, a very successful man, who was once asked which 
he would prefer — a fire that burnt out his factory, his buildings, 
machinery, and plant to total extinction, or some plague or 
epidemic that killed off all his staff. There was no hesita- 
tion in the answer, which was prompt and quick, that he 
would prefer the fire ; because he could sooner replace the 
factory, buildings, machinery, and plant than he could get 
together another staff ; besides, with his staff remaining 
to him, he declared, he could worry through all right without 
the factory, the plant, and machinery, until he got the same 
replaced. And the reason for this preference is obvious. 
An efficient staff is a staff trained to their duties, and this 
training depends upon constant repetition in performance 
of the same duties, and in solving the same problems of the 
business. Repetition is the basis of efficiency, which can only 
be achieved as the result of long service. Therefore, one 
of the principal objects of the employer must be to attach 
to himself an efficient staff ; but, to ensure this, it is abso- 
lutely essential to convince the employee working for salary 
or wages that the welfare of the employer and employee are 
identical. We are all agreed that, to ensure ideal conditions 
and an ideal relationship between employers and employees, 
employment must be so organized that profits earned shall 
not only be sufficient to provide good living conditions for 
the employees, and a reasonable return on the capital invested 



250 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

for the employer, but shall be such as to ensure the advance- 
ment of the industry and the contentment and satisfaction 
of both employers and employees. Mere desire to attach 
a staff to a particular industry, and to ensure long service, 
is not sufficient. The solution of this problem can only be 
found in the actual working conditions themselves, and until 
these working conditions are acceptable to both employers 
and employees, neither are yet prepared to surrender their 
weapons of attack and defence, or to " beat their swords 
into ploughshares and their spears into pruning -hooks " 
in order the better to cultivate a larger and richer harvest. 

The gulf at present separating employers and employees 
is very largely a misunderstanding of the conditions affecting 
each. The employee has an exaggerated idea of the volume 
of the profits produced under ordinary normal conditions of 
the industry in which he is engaged. The employer, faced 
with demands for higher wages and knowing the competition 
he has to face, is nervous in granting advances for fear his 
small margin of profit shall be turned into an actual loss. 
As you know, a minority of employers,, myself included, 
hold very strongly the view that only under a system of 
actual Co-Partnership can the spirit of greed and fear be 
eliminated and a just division of profits as between employer 
and employee be obtained. 

But I propose that we devote ourselves to the considera- 
tion, not of Profit-Sharing or Co-Partnership, which subject 
I have dealt with elsewhere as fully as my limited capacity 
has permitted me, but rather of what, for want of a better 
name, I propose to call " Industrial Administration," and 
of those principles that must be recognized if there are to 
be any profits available for division. But I would here again 
repeat that under no scheme of Co-Partnership can the basic 
principles of industrial administration be ignored without 
entailing serious injury to employers and employees, and 
serious limitations to the expansion of industries and actual 
curtailment of both wages and profits. 

Now, what are a few of the principles that, combined, 
must form and under all circumstances include both the 
employers' point of view, viz. good profits, with thq employees' 
point of view, high wages and reasonable hours ? The chief 
of these basic principles are increased production with con- 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 251 

sequent reduction of overhead charges and reduced operating 
costs, combined with shorter hours for workers, resulting 
in better working conditions, leading to greater efficiency 
and producing higher wages and better profits. To ensure 
the attainment of these aims and objects and of these sound 
economic conditions, and as part of the control of labour, 
the words " Scientific Management " have been applied. 
Unfortunately, much that is preached and sometimes prac- 
tised by this school of employers is neither scientific nor 
worthy of the name of management. But underlying all 
the error of this school of thought are some good, sound, 
wholesome practices. But perhaps a less stilted and less 
irritating title would be " Industrial Administration." The 
supreme spirit of scientific management worthy of that 
description must be that of administration. " Management "■ 
rarely considers the workman other than from the point of 
view of control, and to thrust the antagonizing spirit of con- 
trol to the front place, as so-called " Scientific Management " 
would appear to be doing, is not to make the relations between 
employers and employees less irritating, but rather the con- 
trary. The whole idea associated with " Management " 
is that of control, which idea has embalmed itself, and its 
meaning, in the name " boss." But workmen have grown 
and developed much during the last quarter century, and are 
no longer blindly consenting to be " bossed " or controlled as 
if they were children. Workmen have become responsible 
human beings, and claim some just and sane share in the 
management of their own lives and conditions. The work- 
man to-day claims rights, and does not deny that the exercise 
of rights will bring with it the responsibility for the perform- 
ance of duties, and these duties he is willing to undertake. 
But to show how inapplicable the word " Management " 
is, it is obvious that you cannot have management of rights 
nor management of duties. To show the better applica- 
bility of the word " Administration," you can have admin- 
istration of rights and administration of duties. Therefore, 
if employers and employees are to be brought to work together, 
and if all suspicion and distrust, not to say actual and active 
opposition, are to be abolished, then the idea of " Manage- 
ment " as " bossism " must be surrendered by the employer. 
At this point, I think I can read the thoughts of many 



252 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

in the room, who will be wondering whether I am advocating 
the surrender of all discipline in Industrialism. Nothing of 
the sort. There must now, and for all time, be authority 
and law in Industrialism as in the Army, and as in all places 
where communities have to live and act and work together. 
Both employer and employee must agree fully and without 
reserve in this, otherwise Industrialism and the working 
together of an organized system for production would be 
impossible, and mankind would degenerate into a mob. 

We must have authority and law and due observance of 
discipline in the factory and workshop as on the steamship, 
and as for the nation and State. But do not let us confuse 
ourselves over this essential. The question is, Has the 
authority to be autocratic ? If so, have your management 
as " boss," and endeavour to make it as scientific as possible. 
Or shall the authority be democratic ? In that case, let 
us adopt the description for the authority we must provide 
that best fits our aims and intentions, viz. administration. 
You will find that whilst the dictionary gives "control" 
as one of the meanings of management, that word does not 
appear as one of the meanings of administration, but the 
words " to direct," " to dispense" ; and the word " guardian " 
is given as the meaning of the word " administrator." These 
latter all form a good democratic basis, and the necessity 
for authority, law, discipline, and obedience, under these 
conditions, is at once admitted, and can be accepted without 
humiliation or loss of self-respect, when " bossism," even 
if called " Scientific Management," would raise a spirit of 
opposition founded on the resentment we all feel to that very 
idea when applied to ourselves. 

Scientific Administration we would all welcome as apply- 
ing to established principles supporting the laws for the 
working together of hundreds, or thousands, or millions 
of men and women in productive enterprises for the combined 
benefit of employers, employees, and of the whole community. 
Scientific Management is apt to be viewed as entirely designed? 
to increase the profits and advantages of the employer at 
the expense of the employee, whereas Scientific Administra- 
tion would be welcomed as merely the science of production 
in the simplest, easiest way which would secure the highest 
wages and the greatest prosperity for employers and employees. 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 253 

Scientific Administration can be honestly based on the assump- 
tion that the interests of employers and employees are identical, 
and opposition thereto can only be possible on the assumption 
of the obvious error that these interests never can be honestly 
identical. 

Scientific administration will make clear that restriction 
of output is not only immoral for the man who might have 
made two articles but who only made one, but that he has 
thus robbed his fellow-man even more wickedly than the thief 
who had stolen one out of any two articles one of his fellow - 
men might have made ; for whilst, in the case of the robber, 
there would still be the two articles, and both would be of 
service, there would be only one article in the case of restric- 
tion of output, and the lapse in production could never be 
made good. 

Parliament has intervened to prevent the thraldom of 
labour by passing Industrial Acts, limiting hours and con- 
ditions of labour, fixing rates of wages, providing for em- 
ployers' liability for the safety and health of employees, 
and the emp^ers' responsibility for accident, ill-health, or 
death the direct result of employment. And just as Par- 
liament has made these laws for preventing the thraldom 
of labour, Parliament may also be forced to pass laws to 
prevent restriction of output as an act of robbery against the 
common weal, and, as an act of adulteration of service, just 
as wrong as the adulteration of milk or any article of food or 
commerce. 

Just as attempts by combinations of employers to cheat 
the public in quality and price have been met, when and 
where attempted, by laws to prevent the same, so similar 
attempts by combinations of Labour to cheat their fellow -men 
by restriction of output must, and can be, prevented by laws 
directed to that end. 

Such a state of affairs, however, need never to arise, 
and ought never to arise, if the whole position of industrial 
administration is properly understood. 

The employers' contribution to the world's progress and 
betterment is organization of mechanical utilities and machine 
efficiency, in order to give enormously increased output. 
Industrial administration, by providing the means for inten- 
sive mechanical production by increased steam-power and 



254 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

more efficient plant and machinery, demanding less and 
less exhaustive strain on the employees, has unlimited oppor- 
tunity for increased output at reduced cost after paying 
wages on the highest world's scale ; and this can all be 
accomplished provided the fallacy of restriction of output 
is not permitted to spoil the working of these economic prin- 
ciples. Mechanical utilities, mechanical horse-power, and 
standardization of products are the keystone of the arch 
of better conditions for employer and, still more so, of better 
conditions for employee. 

High wages cannot be paid without correspondingly in- 
creased output by employees. Surely the employees' point 
of view must be the amount of wages received, the length of 
hours worked, and the strain of mind and muscle involved. 
If opportunity of earning high wages can be assured in a 
reasonable eight-hour day without strain or exhaustion, then 
the amount of product need not worry the employee. The 
employee cannot in his own interest wisely assume an attitude 
of approval of restriction of output. 

Under these conditions, industrial administration scien- 
tifically applied will provide that the profits resulting 
from the enormously increased output are not all to go 
as dividends on the capital employed, but shall be shared 
in fair and equitable proportion between both Capital and 
Labour. 

Let us see if practical examples of the effect of a high 
scale of output with high mechanical horse -power per wage- 
earner can be given as showing the direct bearing and con- 
nection on high wages and shorter hours for the workman. 
The lowest output and the longest working hours per wage- 
earner in the world are to be found in China and India ; and 
in these countries there is also the lowest mechanical horse- 
power per wage -earner and the lowest wages earned per wage 
earner. The example of the highest of all these will be 
found in the United States. Let us compare these with 
the same in the United Kingdom. Mechanical horse-power 
per wage -earner in China or India is so low as to be negligible. 
The mechanical horse -power per wage -earner in the United 
States, as given in Government records of industrial produc- 
tion, is two to three times that of the United Kingdom. The 
value of the product per wage -earner per year in the United 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 255 

States is also found to be two to three times that of the wage- 
earner in the United Kingdom. And how do the wages 
paid per wage-earner compare under these conditions ? In 
India and China the average wages do not exceed, for un- 
skilled labour, 4s. per week, and for skilled labour 6s. per 
week. The weekly wages in the United Kingdom and the 
United States for the year 1912, being the latest year avail- 
able for comparison, are stated to be : — 



Carpenters 
Foundrymen 
Builders' labourers 
Other skilled labour 
Other unskilled labour 



U.K. U.S.A. 

£2 £9 

£2 10 £9 

£l6 £6 

£2 /64O 

£120 £2 II o 



Of course, the rates of wages vary in different parts of 
the United States, as in various parts of the United Kingdom, 
and these figures are merely quoted as illustrations, and 
subject to such variations. Hence, whilst in the United 
States the mechanical horse-power is two to three times per 
wage -earner of that per wage -earner in the United Kingdom, 
and the output is also two to three times of that per wage- 
earner in the United Kingdom, the wages in the highly skilled 
trades in the United States are over four times per wage- 
earner of those paid in the United Kingdom, and in the less 
skilled trades over three times, and the unskilled labour 
two to four times that of the same grade of wage -earner in 
the United Kingdom. 

Now let us see if we can find a direct example of reduced 
output per wage -earner in the United Kingdom as compared 
with the same industry and increased output in the United 
States. We can find this example most readily in the statistics 
relating to coal, and whether this reduction of output in 
the United Kingdom has been brought about by the " ca' 
canny " policy in the restriction of output or not is quite 
immaterial to the point it illustrates. I do not know, not 
being connected with the coal industry, how the reduced 
production in the United Kingdom is to be accounted for, 
and I make no attempt at guessing ; but whatever the cause 
may have been does not affect the resulting injury to the 



256 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

consumer and the industries of this country in competition 
with the rest of the world. 



Tons of Coal Produced per Wage-earner per Annum. 



U.K. 


U.S.A. 


312 


400 


260 


613 



1886-90 

1911 



Value at the Pit Mouth. 

1886-90 4s. iod. 6s. 4d. 

1911 8s. id. 5s. iod. 

So that we see in the United States by increased mechanical 
horse-power, combined with increased output, the cost of 
coal to the consumer has been reduced, and the employers 
have been enabled to pay more than two to three times the 
rate of wages per wage -earner in mines, as in all other in- 
dustries in the United States, than can be .paid in the United 
Kingdom. Let me point out that these rates and statistics 
are all pre-war rates and subject to pre-war conditions. This 
increased cost of coal does not benefit either employer or 
employee, and certainly injures the consumer. In fact, 
under these conditions, the employer (or capitalist) in the 
United States also makes better returns on his capital than 
his fellow-employer in the United Kingdom. But the tragedy 
of it is that it makes the cost of cooking, heating, and light- 
ing oppressive for the wage-earner, and creates a handicap 
to every British industry that uses coal, making the cost 
of production of all articles higher. It threatens our iron 
and steel industries and, with them, our world supremacy 
in shipbuilding and our mercantile marine, upon which we 
absolutely depend for our very existence as a nation. 

And now let me give you figures of our greatest national 
industry of all — a national industry which is even greater 
than the iron, steel, and coal industries added together, viz. 
agriculture. In this industry restriction of output is unknown. 
The farmer has a free hand in the cultivation of his crops 
and the rearing of his live stock. If we examine the pedigree 
of the live stock that is most highly prized all over the world, 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 257 

whether of horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, or whatever it may 
be, we find the pedigree of this stock British ; and if we turn 
to crops per acre we shall again see that British farmers, 
untrammelled by restriction of output, hold the highest 
place in their productive enterprise of any nation in the 
world. We will compare the four leading agricultural 
products in the three leading nations. 

Quintals per. Acre, 1913-14. 





Wheat. 


Barlty. 


Oats. 


Potatoes. 


United Kingdom 


. . IO'O 


8-4 


7-6 


64 


United States . . 


•• 4*4 


5*5 


4-4 


29-4 


Germany 


.. 8-0 


8-0 


8-4 


54 



And we must not overlook the fact that, in obtaining this 
high production, our agricultural industry has had to submit 
to the handicap of underpaid, underfed labour, backward 
position in mechanical appliances, and lack of knowledge 
of the science of chemistry as applied to soils and fertilizers. 

Just as we have seen that the highest proportion of 
mechanical horse-power per wage-earner, aided by science 
in administration, has raised the rate of wages in all in- 
dustries, so when we get these modern aids applied to British 
agriculture, so surely will the cost of production be reduced 
by still further increased output, with greatly increased 
wages to labour and better returns to the farmer. The 
low wages of labour in agriculture have been a handicap 
in every way to the farmer by greatly reducing the 
efficiency of his labour and the attractiveness of farm work 
to the wage-earner. He has had to stand impotently by 
and see his best labour leave the country and seek the higher 
rate of pay obtainable in the town and city. 

We see clearly what an awful blunder for the Empire the 
policy of restriction of output proves itself to be. Where 
high mechanical horse-power per wage-earner is found, there 
the greatest output per wage-earner exists side by side with 
the highest scale of wages. Restriction of output is not 
only an economic fallacy but is the robbery, by the worker, 
of his mates of their rightful due in wages, food, clothing, 
houses, and welfare conditions. It is the duty of every 

18 



258 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Trade Union official to fight thi9 false doctrine with all his 
strength and might; and I say this because I know, and 
I am convinced by a lifelong friendship and acquaintance 
with Trade Unions, that they have one sincere aim and 
object which they pursue with devotion — the welfare of 
the wage-earner. 

There is nothing in mechanical horse-power, new and 
improved machinery, producing enormously increased out- 
put, to incur the opposition and enmity of Trade Unions. 
If it pays, as it does, scientific administration to scrap obso- 
lete plant, buildings, and machinery (and we know that there 
is no scrapping and destruction of obsolete property which 
will not, in the long run, prove immensely profitable when it 
represents the price to be paid for superior and more efficient 
methods), then similarly it may be said with equal truth 
that it will pay the wage-earner to scrap obsolete, false 
economic methods and worn-out policies. And first of all 
of these policies to be scrapped ought to be that of restriction 
of output. 

There is a much broader sphere for the operations of Trade 
Unions, providing ample work for many years to come, in 
bettering the industrial conditions of this country. The 
scrapping of the policy of " ca' canny," or restriction of output, 
will give all the more liberty and power for the advancement 
of these higher aims and activities ; and, in addition, this 
broader, better outlook and higher activities for Trade Union- 
ism will prove to the world that Trade Unions are fighting 
not only for the betterment of the workers, but are considering 
the interests of the consumer and of the British Empire in 
competition with all other nations in the world. 

When the British public are convinced that the good of 
the community as a whole, and the progress and strength 
of the British Empire in competition with all nations of the 
world, are also receiving the attention and special care of 
Trade Unions, then woe to the capitalist or employer who 
attempts to oppose any just demands made for the further- 
ance of these aims and objects. 

The times are changed, thank God S from when, in 1858, 
Ruskin addressed these sentences to a British audience as 
being the then thoughts of Capital and of the general public 
towards Labour :— 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 259 

" Be assured, my good man," you say to him, " that if you work 
steadily for teu hours a day all your life, and if you drink nothing 
but water, or the very mildest beer, and live on very plain food, 
and never lose your temper, and go to church every Sunday, and 
always remain content in the position in which Providence has 
placed you, and never grumble, nor swear ; and always keep your 
clothes decent, and rise early, and use every opportunity of im- 
proving yourself, you will get on very well, and never come to 
the parish." 

Ruskin's biting sarcasm passed without effecting any 
material change ; but what biting sarcasm has failed to 
bring home to the intelligence of employers and the public 
may, perhaps, be learned by both from our common 
necessities in the evolution of industrialism. 

When peace comes, bringing us victory over our enemies 
and giving us rest from the clash of arms, we shall still have 
to enter the field of struggle for commercial position amongst 
the nations of the world. It is unthinkable that we and 
our Allies, proving victorious in this cruel war, fighting for 
right and liberty, justice and freedom, should be defeated 
in the struggle for industrial position by our present enemies 
and Neutral nations. And yet defeat is certain if our in- 
dustrial organization is founded on attempted oppression 
of Labour on the one hand or restriction of output by Labour 
on the .other hand. 

Our victorious Army has been drawn from all classes, from 
the highest to the most humble in the land, who have 
been loyal and true comrades in the trenches, and it is un- 
thinkable that when the war is over industrial antagonism 
should prevent the Empire maintaining her former proud 
commercial position. Let both employer and employee 
scrap their old, antiquated, false ideas as to their mutual 
relationships, and work with a better understanding of each 
other's rights and duties, recognizing that this good old world 
is far too small to hold any more than two classes in the 
classification of people, viz. those w r ho do their duty and those 
who fail to do their duty. It is certain that in the next 
world there will be only these two classes, whatever artificial 
divisions between employer and employee may have existed 
in this world. 



II 

COMBINES 

Port Sunlight, January n, 1903. 

[The following address has the special interest attaching to a 
friendly talk by a great employer to an audience consisting 
very largely of his own workmen on topics of intimate con- 
cern to both parties. They met on the common ground 
afforded by the annual gathering of the Port Sunlight Men's 
Meeting. Lord Leverhulme said :] 

The subject I have chosen for my address is best described 
by the word " Combines." I do not care whether it is a 
combination of masters, in which case we probably call it 
a Trust, or a combination of men, in which case we should 
probably call it a Trade Union — there is nothing new in 
Combines. And I am afraid that there is nothing new which 
can be brought forward as to the principles that will govern 
them. In my opinion, the principles that govern Combines 
are just as old as the law of gravitation and just as immutable. 
The difficulty is sometimes to find out what these principles 
are, but the principles are there, we may depend upon it, 
and we may also depend upon it that they apply equally 
certainly to the masters as to the men. I can best illustrate 
that by imagining for the moment that a master and a man 
(his workman) were walking down, we'll say, one of the 
corridors of a cotton-mill, and we will imagine that the master, 
by some mishap, became entangled in the machinery on 
the left, and the workman became entangled in the machinery 
on the right. The machines, we know, would be no respecters 
of either master or man ; they would not stop on the master's 
side nor on the man's side. If either got entangled in the 
machinery, the mishap would be just the same whether 
master or man. And so in my opinion it is if by any mishap 

360 






SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 261 

we forget economic conditions in dealing with Combines. 
I believe that if we make a mistake destruction will just 
as surely come on the master if he makes a mistake as upon 
the employee if he makes a mistake. 

Well, I believe there is a general impression sometimes 
in the minds of employees that the master is a sort of 
tyrant, who could pay very handsome wages if he would, 
and who does not do it just merely out of cussedness and 
an ill-will towards his men. And there is an opinion among 
some masters that they are very unfortunate, they don't 
make as much money as they ought ; but that it is 
certainly not their fault, and that it is probably any- 
body's fault but their own. Well, now, I would like just, 
if we can, to inquire what are the conditions that would 
prevail to make a successful combination of masters, and 
what would be the conditions that would prevail to make 
a successful combination of men. It does not matter which 
we take first — there is no order of priority in the matter. 
The century that has just closed has seen an equally large 
advance in combinations of men as we have seen in com- 
binations of masters. The number of Trade Unions in Eng- 
land to-day is larger than it ever was in the whole of the 
preceding centuries of the world's history, and combines 
of masters are larger to-day and represent a larger amount 
of capital than was ever known in the preceding history of 
the world. 

Well, now, suppose we take the question of the combines 
on the masters' side first — we shall find upon a close 
examination into the combines of employers that those 
combines have succeeded when one of the results of com- 
bination has been an opportunity for producing a cheaper 
product, an opportunity for producing a more abundant 
product, and an opportunity for producing a better product ; 
and we invariably find that combinations of masters have 
failed when the object has been, without having the ad- 
vantages I have just mentioned, to increase the profits of 
the masters — in other words, their wages — or to bolster up 
decaying industries. I will just give you one illustration 
of a successful combination in our own country, that is 
Coats' thread. They combined a number of thread-makers, 
and they were enabled to save enormously in salesmen's 



262 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

salaries and expenses. An enormous amount of money is 
saved in advertising, and enormous sums of money are 
saved in various other ways, with the result that the 
undertaking is successful. Now, I might mention many, 
but it would be invidious to do so, that have been gross 
failures— -you know of them ; I hope none of you have put 
your money into them — which have never had for their object 
the cheapening of the product. They had no opportunity 
springing out of the effect of the combination for cheapen- 
ing their product. Their object, prominently held forth 
in prospectus and dangled before the eyes of possible in- 
vestors, has been to increase the profits by doing away with 
competition, and this object they have always failed to 
realize. I have never heard yet of a single instance where, 
for even a small number of years, a combination, brought 
about with that object, and without the other advantages 
I have mentioned, has succeeded. Now, the position from 
the employer's point of view is this : the market that he 
caters for is no longer the local one. There was a time when 
the manufacturer did not even make for all England, but 
he made for the town, village, or district in which he lived. 
The products were small and unimportant ; they were what 
were called cottage industries, and many people lament 
their disappearance ; but they have had to go in the march 
of progress, and the manufacturer has had to face all the 
consequences brought about by the invention of steam, by 
the extension of railways and steamboats, and the enor- 
mously increased capital required in consequence of these 
things. In the old days a manufactory would be an indi- 
vidual concern. Next, we can imagine, after that would 
come the time when two or three individuals would join 
their capital together and form a partnership, and that was 
a state of affairs which continued until quite recently. Then 
it grew beyond the capital available by two or three joining 
together as a partnership, and limited companies became 
necessary, with appeals to be made to thousands of investors, 
in order that still larger capital might be got together. Now 
we have reached a further stage again, when a number of 
limited companies require to be grouped together into what 
we call a Combine, the object being the concentration of 
capital and the concentration of effort. If these Combines 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 263 

result in cheaper production and a more abundant supply, 
such undertakings will be successful ; if not, they will be 
failures. 

The very idea of large combinations is always alarming 
to us at first. It is only when we become accustomed to the 
altered conditions that we cease to fear it ; but we may, I 
think, feel certain that as inventions progress the amount 
of capital required in business will be larger and larger, 
and so Combines on a larger scale even than we know them 
to-day will become necessary, practicable, and successful. We 
may regret the disappearance of the small manufacturers, 
but, after all, it is certain that the destruction of the small 
manufacturer is simply his smallness. It is not himself, 
it is merely a matter of size. The law is undoubtedly " For 
whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have 
more abundance : but whosoever hath not, from him shall be 
taken away even that he hath." If the small manufacturer 
could produce more cheaply than the large manufacturer, it is 
as clear as the sun at noonday that before many years were 
over the positions would be reversed, and the former small 
manufacturer would have become the large manufacturer, 
and the former large manufacturer would have disappeared 
altogether. Therefore, it is clear that large manufacturers 
are going to be the rule. They receive many advantages — 
advantages of large capital enabling them to make large 
purchases, to buy improved machinery, to engage a large 
and experienced and talented staff ; and they have facilities 
for the utilization of waste products which small manu- 
facturers do not enjoy, and never can enjoy. And then they 
can live on a smaller percentage of profits. What would 
be a ruinous profit to the small manufacturer becomes an 
ample fortune to the large manufacturer doing an enormous 
turnover. The public cry all over the world is always for 
cheapness, and I do not mean, when I say cheapness, for 
nasty cheapness, but cheap good quality. The public are 
continually supporting and rushing after the man who can 
give them the best goods at the lowest possible price. The 
third of a farthing a pound on the sugar consumed in the 
United Kingdom would amount to somewhere about one 
million sterling. I venture to say that the small sugar refiner 
would find so small a profit as that probably spell ruin, but 



264 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

a large manufacturer, you can readily understand, could 
make an ample profit out of such a margin. 

Now, I have ventured to impress upon you the conditions 
that prevail with regard to employers. If every one of you in 
this room were a manufacturer, that is the state of affairs you 
would have to face at the beginning of the twentieth century. 
It is an iron law, and any manufacturer who feels competition 
keen to-day and seeks relief in combination with other manu- 
facturers in the same line of business, thinking thereby to 
avoid what he calls cut-throat competition, unless he can 
prove to himself that such combination will enable him to 
produce cheaper and to save expenses, will be simply putting 
off the evil day, and the firms he has combined with will 
simply drag each other down, down, down, until they disappear. 
Their place will be taken by men who are producing more 
cheaply, with probably improved machinery and other better 
conditions. If, as a result of the combination, he can pro- 
duce cheaper, he may also depend upon it as an absolute 
certainty that he will make better profits, otherwise called 
wages, because the fund available for so-called profits or 
wages will have been increased. 

Now, what is the position with regard to the employees ? 
We know that the employees are feeble if single ; we know 
that if you take a number of employees and put them, 
say, on a desert island in the Pacific, with merely their 
hands, they would be not in any one bit superior, and 
probably very much inferior, to the savages living on 
the island. An employee's capital is not cash like the 
employer's ; an employee's capital is his intellectual and 
bodily attainments, and the knowledge he has acquired and 
his natural aptitudes. But all the same, man is a machine 
just as much as the engine he is driving, and is subject to 
just the same unchangeable law. We all of us know that 
the machine which can produce, in proportion to its consump- 
tion of fuel, the largest amount of goods is the best, and the 
one that will be secured at the highest price — and the same 
it is with man. An employee has the responsibility resting 
upon him to elevate and improve his condition — an employee 
has just the same ambitions in that direction as his employer 
— and if an employer can consider the question of combina- 
tions as to whether they are going to benefit him, the employee 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 265 

has not only an equal right to do it — which I venture to say 
no one would be so foolish as to dispute — but he has the 
responsibility resting upon him to seek out how he may do 
it for the benefit of himself, his wife, and family ; and it is 
his duty to seek out whether he can improve his condition 
by combination, and if he finds he can on solid, sound business 
lines, then it is his duty to do it. 

Now, in what way can an employee (to go back to the 
illustration of the engine) improve his power of production, 
and, consequently, his own value ; and what are the laws 
that govern him ? I venture to support the views that 
have most strongly appealed to me under this head, and 
they are these : firstly, the value of a man is in proportion 
to his power and ability, mental and physical, and the 
power of the implements he works with ; secondly, it 
is in proportion to the abundance of circulating capital ;- 
and thirdly, the value of a man is affected by the cost of 
rent, food, and clothing. Now, suppose we take the first 
of these three — firstly, that the value of a man is in pro- 
portion to his power and ability, mental and physical, and 
the power of the implements he works with. We have often 
seen through lack of knowledge on this point that workmen 
have declared over and over again that machinery was throw- 
ing them out of employment, destroying their labour, and 
lowering their wages. We find that the hand-loom cotton- 
spintiers in Lancashire declared, when Crompton and Ark- 
wright made their discoveries which have resulted in the 
present basis of cotton-spinning, that they were being ruined ; 
and some of these men took extreme measures and smashed 
the models of these inventors. In Samuel Crompton's house 
you can be shown the hole in which Crompton had to bury 
his model of his machine from his own class, his own fellow- 
workmen living in cottages, his neighbours, who, if they could 
have got at it, would have smashed it to pieces. What was 
the fact at that time ? Before the inventions of Crompton 
and Arkwright there were only 8,000 cotton operatives in 
all England, and no associated trades to speak of, going with 
them. Of course, I am not including in that the wife, who 
did a little bit of spinning for her family at home, as most 
farmers' wives did. Twenty-seven years after these machines 
had come into operation — these machines that these men 



266 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

wanted to break up — there were 300,000 workmen engaged, 
and wages had advanced. Eighty years later wages had 
still further advanced, and there were 800,000 men engaged 
in England in the cotton industry, and to-day wages are 
higher than ever, and including the associated trades that 
go with cotton-spinning — such as calico-printing and the 
making of the machinery — it is estimated that not less 
than two and a half millions of people are engaged in 
the cotton industry in this kingdom. 

We see now that it was machinery that enabled us to do this. 
It has enabled the Lancashire spinner to buy cotton in India, 
to pay the carriage from India to Lancashire, to make it into 
cotton goods, to ship it back to India, and whilst paying 
weavers and spinners from 24s. to 36s. a week, to sell that 
product cheaper on the Indian market than Hindoos getting 
6d. a day. It is enabling Lancashire cotton -spinners to do 
all that and yet beat the native Hindoo labourer working 
at the rate of 6d. a day. What is the reason ? The reason 
is that whatever increases the product increases the fund 
out of which wages are paid. There is . no other way of 
paying wages. You cannot pay wages except from the fund 
from which wages are produced — the product of the man, 
or the man and the machine he works — and therefore every 
invention, every discovery, every machine, every improved 
organization, every increase in product, increases the fund 
available for wages. Now what could decrease the fund 
available for wages ? Many things, but one thing most 
certainly, and that is the employees rendering the task of 
the employer more difficult, either by slovenliness or laziness, 
or by compelling him to go to expensive and costly super- 
vision ; all this would decrease the fund available for wages, 
and tend therefore to lessen the sum paid in wages. 

Now we come to the second point. The value of a 
man, as of all producing machinery, is in proportion to 
the abundance of circulating capital. The circulating 
capital is the money that will bring produce to the 
machine and be responsible for all the floating capital 
required in the business. It is found that as capital in any 
country increases, the wages invariably increase. It is a fact 
that in all countries where wealth increases wages increase. 
The reason for that is clear : that in countries that are wealthy 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 267 

there is so much more capital available to purchase machinery, 
for the payment of inventors, for the building of railways 
and steamboats, for floating capital, for the purchase of 
stocks, for opening up fresh markets, for providing for stability 
of credit. All these things require money, and every one of 
these tends to increase the fund out of which wages are paid, 
and consequently tends to increase the amount of wages. 
The shrewd employer with ample capital, and who apparently 
is making the very largest profits, and who very often is con- 
sidered to be making them out of his workpeople, is really 
producing a fund available for wages and salaries, and every 
such employer that there is through the country must 
have the effect of increasing the fund available for payment 
of wages and salaries ; and every employer making small 
profits or no profits, short of shrewdness, short of capital, 
unable to meet modern improvements, to get rid of his old 
machinery and put in new, is tending to decrease the fund 
available for wages. 

The next position is that the value of labour is in pro- 
portion to the cost of rent, food, and clothing. We all 
know that money value is only relative. If you go to a 
country and you find that rent is high, clothes dear, food 
dear, why, you naturally require a larger sum of money to 
live in that country than in one in which rent and clothing and 
food are cheap. It does not matter, when I pull a penny out 
of my pocket, whether I call it a penny or a shilling ; if the 
purchasing power of the penny in a certain place is equal 
to the purchasing power of a shilling in another place, I shall 
find it is immaterial to me as long as I can buy as much for 
the penny in one place as for the shilling in another. You 
might just as well, for all practical purposes, call the penny 
a shilling or the shilling a penny. In Egypt a workman 
can keep his wife and family, and live well, on 6d. a 
day. In the United States a man can scarcely live — he 
cannot live in comfort — on 6s. a day. It is, therefore, 
perfectly clear that it is not the amount of money received 
but what money will buy that is the standard. 

Professor Thorold Rogers, who investigated this subject very 
closely, was one of the first to draw attention to what was 
the golden age for labour in this country, and what I believe 
was the golden age for labour in the world, and that was here 



268 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

in England in the fifteenth century. Guilds, which preceded 
our present Trade Unions, were prevalent in all trades ; they 
were extremely wealthy, and we have many of them existing 
right down to the present time, as the City Guilds of London. 
The wages paid then — if I tell you the amount you will say 
they were very badly paid, shockingly paid — the standard 
wages for stone-masons, bricklayers, joiners, and most other 
trades was 6d. a day, but they were paid for all days — 
15s. a month. Let us see what the sixpence would do. 
Supposing you formed a club here for buying each other 
clothing, food, and paying your rents here in Port Sunlight, 
and you took a thousand of your number, and said, " We'll 
put all our wages into a common pool." Well, imagine you 
have such a club in Port Sunlight, and one man is buying 
as cheaply as he can all 3^our mutton, beef, pork, eggs, geese, 
pigeons, etc., calico, clothing, and paying your rent. Well, 
imagine there was another club like that in the fifteenth 
century, let us see what your wages would have to be to do 
what the men could do in the fifteenth century. Each man's 
wages would need to be £10 a week to . pay your rent as 
you pay it in Port Sunlight ; for buying beef, mutton, and 
pork, £3 10s. a week ; geese, £5 5s. a week ; chickens, £4 a 
week ; pigeons, £6 a week ; cheese and butter, £4 a week ; 
bread only £1 a week — that is entirely caused by the cheap- 
ness of transport by rail and steam ; eggs, £3 15s. a week ; 
calico, 3s. 6d. a week — that is caused, again, by the machinery 
I have mentioned, the inventions of Crompton and Ark- 
wright ; for the clothes you wear your wages would have 
to be 15s. a week. 

These men in the fifteenth century, therefore, were 
extremely well paid ; in fact, food was so cheap in those 
days that when these men went to work on the monas- 
teries and the cathedrals, which we see now in the country, 
some in ruins and some still in existence, as York Minster, 
it was perfectly immaterial to the master whether he 
gave the man food in addition or not. The man got his 
wages, and if he liked to have his food he could have it. 
They worked eight hours a day in the fifteenth century ; 
therefore, the workmen of to-day are only striving for what 
their forefathers enjo3^ed five hundred years ago. Another 
feature of that age is the quality of the work. It has survived 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 269 

to the present time ; it is unquestionable that each mason 
took a pride in his work, and put a mark on each stone he 
worked, and those masons' marks on the old stones are known 
well throughout the country, very much like signed pictures 
by a Royal Academician of to-day. I won't say we cannot, 
but we do not produce such quality in stone-masons' work 
and brickwork to-day. Won't you agree with me that such 
a high quality of work would have been impossible if the men 
had been paid starvation wages and worked long hours ? 
I am perfectly certain of it, and when I know, as above 
illustrated, that men were paid in purchasing power at double 
the rate of wages that men are receiving to-day, and working 
an eight-hour day, then when I see the quality of the work 
that went with it, I see not, necessarily, cause and effect, 
but I see an effect which might have been utterly impossible 
of attainment under other conditions ; and I also see that 
when the work is excellent its value is increased, and when 
you increase the value you again increase the fund out of 
which wages are to be paid. 

Now, these Labour Associations in the fifteenth century 
were extremely strong, but one of the special features of 
them — and we see it in some of the lodges that come 
down to us to-day — was that they inculcated temperance, 
religion, good, honest work. The vices of the age had 
not then reached the workmen. Whatever they were, 
they had certainly not reached the working man of those 
days. That was the high- water mark for workmen ; and 
the low- water mark was just about one hundred years 
ago. The Civil Wars, the Wars of the Roses, brought about 
a great change, for as soon as you have war, you are reducing 
the fund out of which wages are paid. There might be honour 
and glory, but you are destroying product, and as surely 
as you destroy product you destroy the fund out of which 
wages are paid. Then, when the wars in France ceased — 
for in those days we used to have periodical wars with France 
— the soldiers who returned began to maraud the country ; 
they never settled down to work again : they became bands 
of robbers, preying on industries and making the country 
unsettled. Then bad government followed, resulting in the 
great Civil War of Cromwell's time. All these things, I want 
to impress upon you, are the factors that govern the case ; 



270 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

these things reduce the fund out of which wages are paid — 
they reduce it so much that, in 165 1, only two hundred years 
after the golden age for labour — the magistrates attempted 
to fix by law a minimum wage for a man equal to 5s. a week 
in its purchasing power to-day, and during the first twenty 
years of the last century the wages paid were only equal, 
in present purchasing power, to 6s. a week for a man. We 
wonder how they could live on it — they did not live, they 
starved. I have read reports concerning the workpeople 
in some of the towns of Lancashire, at the period of one 
hundred years ago, and there find there was often not a bed 
in many families, in some towns only a bed for five 
families, and they had to sleep on straw and anything 
they could get. 

The three conditions I have mentioned are the only 
conditions that can affect labour and increase wages, and 
as in the fifteenth century, so in the twentieth century, 
Trade Unions are absolutely necessary ; but don't let us 
mistake their vocation ! In the fifteenth century the unions 
insisted upon absolutely a high standard of excellence in a 
workman before he was admitted. Trade Unions are 
powerless to raise wages other than by widening, broaden- 
ing, and increasing the only three sources out of which 
the fund available for wages can spring. If Trade Unions 
could raise wages they could maintain them. The Trade 
Unions of the fifteenth century, rich and powerful beyond 
anything we have to-day, would have done so, but they were 
a broken reed, feeble as water, against the neglect and viola- 
tion of the three sources above mentioned, powerless against 
the destructive effects of war, bad government, and a waste 
of capital. The present improved conditions of labour have 
not been brought about by Trade Unions, else how can you 
explain the fact that domestic service, which is absolutely 
without any union at all, and which numbers more people 
than any other single industry, has been able to obtain 
larger increases of wages than any of the organized industries ? 
The reason is this : that in domestic servants you have got 
these three conditions fulfilled. Domestic servants, as a 
class, have immensely improved in the last fifty years ; they 
have improved in the quality of the service they have rendered, 
and, consequently, there has been an increased demand 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 271 

for their services ; but, further than that, there has been a 
large and enormous increase of capital and of wealth in this 
country : consequently, there has been a larger number of 
people who have wanted domestic servants. Lastly, there 
has been a reduced cost for food and other things, and as the 
cost of keeping and paying for the mere food of a domestic 
servant has gone down, the fund available for payment 
of wages to a domestic has increased, and the domestic 
has had the advantage of it. 

If Trade Unions were to force wages up in any industry 
higher than that industry could pay out of its funds 
available for wages, that industry would soon cease to 
exist — there can be no doubt about that. And is not this 
a better footing to have the question upon than that of 
mere bargaining between master and man, in which the 
workman asks for a rise of wages somewhat as if it were 
a favour, and believes that if he fought hard enough, 
and struggled long enough, he would get it ? I think that 
idea is degrading to every one of us ; and look at the false 
position such a system places the master in. There is no 
master who is a master literally : he is just as much the 
servant of the public, and just as much dependent upon the 
quality of the service he renders to the public, as the men 
he employs are his servants. The sooner we recognize the 
economic conditions that govern these matters, the sooner 
we shall find that we are all on one common platform, that 
we can work together to increase the fund out of which wages 
are paid, but no amount of bargaining, no matter of asking 
as a favour for higher wages, no question of refusing as an 
act of tyranny, has any effect upon the question whatever. 
I prefer it so, and I believe every one of you, as I know you 
do, prefers it to be on that footing. Trade Unions, I think, 
have recognized these last twenty years this fact, and do 
recognize it more and more ; they see that their greatest 
sphere of usefulness is in increasing the power of the three 
main influences that tend to enlarge the fund available for 
the payment of wages. 

The Trade Unions Parliamentary Committees have striven 
for good government to protect their members from in- 
justice ; they have agitated in Parliament for improved 
conditions of labour ; they have agitated for employers' 



272 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

liability; they have agitated for reforms of administration 
of justice ; for the appointment of factory inspectors ; 
for the improvement of patent laws — a most important 
matter ; they have agitated for certificates of competency 
for engine-drivers, and for various improvements of the 
Friendly Societies Acts. These are the lines along which, 
I venture to say, Trade Unions can best gain their object. 
Trade Unions are absolutely necessary ; there must be 
combinations of men, but don't let us mistake either 
what a combination of employers can do for employers or 
what a combination of employees can do for employees. If 
we take the right view of this, we shall see that any attempt 
at restriction of output is only another way of reducing the 
fund out of which wages are paid, and can only have one 
effect, and that is to reduce wages. I venture to say that 
Trade Unions might take just one little lesson from their 
predecessors, the Guilds of the fifteenth century, and whilst 
determined as these Guilds were in protecting their members 
in the maintenance of the standard Wage/ that they should 
accompany that by an equally strong insistence upon a 
maximum of efficiency in their members. By doing so the 
fund available for wages would be again increased. 

Perhaps it might be argued that self-interest is quite strong 
enough to deal with these matters ; that the man who wants his 
wages increased will take such measures as he thinks right to get 
them increased, and his own self-interest will keep him right. 
I have never known the man who did right merely because 
it was his self-interest to do so. It is to no one's self-interest 
to get drunk, or to get locked in prison or to commit any 
crime. We don't find self-interest strong enough to keep 
men out of prison or to make them lead good lives, and the 
reason is that self-interest must be an enlightened self-interest. 
If you will add the word " enlightened," and say " enlight- 
ened self-interest is a strong factor," I will agree with you ; 
and, therefore, it is extremely necessary, when we are discussing 
the points of self-interest, to see that we have enlightened 
self-interest. And if we do that, we shall find as years roll 
on that we are improving our conditions. Not suddenly, 
perhaps — sudden changes are not very desirable — but gradually 
improving our conditions ; and we may rest assured of this : 
that anything that tends to violate the three conditions that 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 273 

I have ventured to call your attention to will, sooner or later, 
and in my opinion sooner than later, reduce the fund available 
for wages. We are suffering a little from that now. We 
have just come through a war, 1 and war, altogether apart 
from whether necessary or unnecessary, is destructive ; and 
as surely as we go to war, righteous war just as much as un- 
righteous war, war of self-defence just as much as war of 
attack, we shall have to pay the penalty. Whenever we go 
to war, let us know and realize the step we are taking. Don't 
let us think we can go to war any more than go to law, and 
not have the bill to pay afterwards. The three conditions 
I have mentioned are the three conditions we must keep 
steadily in mind. 

* The Boer War. 



19 



Ill 
X PROBLEMS 

Liverpool, November 23, 1917. 

[In the plain terms of a worker speaking to workers, Lord 
Leverhulme addressed the representatives of the Liverpool 
Trades and Labour Council on topics to which the Great 
War has given a new urgency.] 

We have all of us ideals, and the following of our ideals 
brings us into contact with manjr aspects of life, but we are 
conscious that the only part worth living of our lives is follow- 
ing those ideals ; and I know every one of us in this room 
realizes that fact, and that we are all anxious to do every- 
thing we can to realize our ideals. We recognize, fully and 
completely, that present conditions are not right. When 
we talk of Labour Unrest, then I say, if Labour were quiet 
under present conditions it would be a bad look-out for this 
country fifty years from now. The healthiest signs we have 
got to-day are Labour Unrest and all the aspirations of Labour 
— and I may be allowed to use the word "labour," because I 
think I have worked as hard as any one in this room, and 
have done so all my life. 

As an ideal, we see urged on some hands that the confis- 
cation of all the wealth to-day, the cancellation of all the 
war loans and so on, would be a short-cut to a more equal 
enjoyment by Labour of all that wealth can place within the 
reach of each of us. Believe me, that is a delusion. If all 
the money possessed by each of us here in this room to-night 
were placed on this table and pooled and divided out equally 
to us as we left the room, the only result that such division 
could have would be this, that those who had been thrifty 
and worked hard, and had saved a little money, would be 

asking themselves to-morrow, knowing that the same process 

374 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 275 

would require to be repeated over and over again, Why 
should they live laborious days and deny themselves enjoy- 
ments and luxuries when this was the only result ? And, 
equally, those who had received money that they had not 
worked for would feel that this and future divisions would 
abolish the necessity of their working to-morrow and their 
practice of thrift to-morrow, so that both sections of us in 
this room would go away discouraged from the exercise of 
our full ability for work and thrift. 

There can be no other way in which we can get greater 
comfort and happiness for each of us than by producing more 
goods. That is the keynote of all, and there is no reason 
why in the production of more goods we should not do so 
on such lines as will ensure a more equal distribution of the 
result of our labour, because that is what we do want. Well, 
we are apt to think that unless there is going to be a more 
equal distribution of wealth, there is something in the dis- 
tribution at fault, and we are quite right in considering in 
what way we can deal with the problem and rectify abuses. 
Now, the only way in which we can increase wages — because 
that is the first step to advancement — is by increasing pro- 
duction. The only way in which we can soundly increase 
production is by employing more machinery. The only 
way in which we can make a demand, a consuming demand, 
for this increased production is by cheapening the product, 
otherwise, no matter what the wages are, the price of the pro- 
duct is so high that, as we are feeling now in war-time, the 
extra wages are of very little increased value. And, finally — 
and here is where I want to lay great emphasis — you cannot 
increase demand greatly, notwithstanding that you have 
raised wages, notwithstanding that you have cheapened 
the product, unless you have elevated and increased the wants 
of the people. You have to increase wants. You can only 
raise their wants by giving them more leisure. I believe 
that reduced hours of labour and more leisure for a proper 
outlook on life are as essential to an increased consumption 
of articles that can be produced as is a cheaper cost. 

Now, we will imagine, for instance, that away in the Congo 
we talked of greatly increasing the production of, say calico. 
I have been through the Congo ; the native there has few 
or no wants. A piece of calico the size of a towel makes a 



276 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

full dress suit for the husband ; another piece the same size 
makes the full dress suit for the wife, and the children need 
no dress at all. Now, if we were to produce any quantity of 
calico, as soon as these simple wants were satisfied there 
would be no demand for the remainder. We would have to 
start in the Congo by first of all inspiring in men and women 
a love for more clothing — blouses, skirts, trousers, coats, and 
so on ; and for houses that required table-cloths, sheets, curtains 
to the windows and all the rest that makes for comfort, and 
then we would find that with these new wants came such a 
demand that however much calico we could produce in reason, 
it would be all required and all be sold. Now, I believe as 
firmly that the workmen of this country — I have endeavoured 
to practise it in my own limited way — have as much right 
to an artistic home, a comfortable home in a garden, with 
all the amenities of life, as their employer. Now, I say that 
that is the first essential to the enjoyment of this leisure. 
What use is it talking to a workman about a nice artistic 
home with pictures or engravings on the wall, taste shown 
in everything, when he only comes home to sleep and to 
rest for the next day, leaves early, and his only time at home 
is an occasional Sunday ? You won't raise a taste for an 
artistic home under these conditions. Art flourishes only 
where there is leisure and all that art means, in increased 
demand for books and everything that makes for comfort, 
and, believe me, reduced hours of labour are essential for 
increased demand. 

Now, if we have such a production that wages can be 
raised, a greater volume of articles produced, costing less 
money, and increased demand to sell them off as fast as they 
are produced, that is an ideal and it is worth striving for. 
We can only achieve this with machinery. There must be 
no antipathy to enlarged output by machinery, and, believe 
me, wages increases then would become quite a matter of 
secondary importance. You know that there is automatic 
machinery in which the wages of the operator, however high, 
are a very small part of the cost of production. The great 
part of cost of production is interest, depreciation, repairs 
and renewals, and the cost of the central power station for 
running the machinery. Now, we have these machines, and 
if we are wanting a greater increased output we are simul- 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 277 

taneously wanting more ships and we are wanting more 
machinery for the ships ; and how can we greatly in the next 
few years duplicate our machinery for factories ? All our 
men will be wanted on shipbuilding, house-building, and 
repairing of the devastation of war ; but we can run our 
existing machinery double time, and it does not cost us any- 
thing more for interest, for depreciation ; only a little more 
for raising steam in the boiler, a little more for oil, a little 
more for repairs, and we get all that increased production, 
with just those trifling expenses. Labour working six hours 
a day, as has been proved over and over again, can produce 
in six hours the maximum it is capable of in monotonous occu- 
pations. We shall, therefore, be able to pay for six hours' 
work at least the same rate of pay as we pay for eight, because 
labour will be capable of as much work in six as in eight hours. 
The machinery will produce more, and out of this combined 
effort, the human element working two shifts of six hours 
each, the mechanical element working twelve hours, or more, 
we shall have two funds created, one for reducing the price 
of the article and another for increasing the wages on the 
top of the reduction of hours. 

These results are certain, provided we have the demand 
for the goods when they are produced. Apart from export 
trade, which we shall be bound to cultivate, and which is an 
enormous trade and one which we can make still greater, 
we must have the increased demand from the home trade, 
and that I believe the six-hour day, by giving us more leisure, 
will ensure to us. Now, why do I talk so positively about 
this ? Do you know that we find all over the world that 
wages are the highest where, per capita of the people, the 
greatest amount of machinery is in existence and in employ- 
ment — the wages are the highest there — and as a result the 
wealth invested in machinery in these countries has always 
an ever-increasing force compelling it to still further similar 
investment in that direction because it pays. In the United 
States the capital per head in machinery is the highest of 
anywhere in the world, and wages there, as we know, before 
the war and maybe even to-day, were the highest also. In 
China and India the amount invested in machinery is the 
lowest of any countries in the world, and the wages are 
the lowest. And, curiously enough, it was India, where the 



278 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

cotton is grown, where the men in the cotton-mill get pence 
a day — eightpence and ninepence a day — and where native 
engineers when I was last in that part of the world were only 
getting ninepence a day — it was India, that grows the cotton, 
and where labour works long hours for these low wages, that 
within this very year, only a few months ago, appealed to 
the British Parliament to be protected — from whom ? From 
people working longer hours and being paid less money ? 
No ; but from Lancashire, where the workers receive more 
shillings per day than the Hindoo receives pence, and where 
they work less hours, and where they have to pay freight 
on the cotton from India to Lancashire, make it into goods, 
and again pay freight to send it back to India. So that 
higher wages go with machinery and lower cost of production, 
and lower wages and less machinery go with higher cost of 
production and strangle any attempt to raise and uplift labour, 
as we see in India. 

Now, I think we can claim at this point that all employers 
must abandon their idea that low wages mean cheap produc- 
tion and high profits, and I think the workman must equally 
abandon his idea that limited production means more labour 
employed and at higher wages. They are both wrong, and 
two wrongs do not make one right. 

Now then, can we arrive at a prospect of some direction 
in which we can work to lift the workers ? We want more 
capital invested in labour-saving machinery to give us 
increased output, higher wages, shorter hours, reduced cost 
of production, and we want to eliminate the element of fatigue 
by the reduced hours of labour as well. 

Now, there is a theory, and you know the theory as well 
as I, that labour produces all wealth. It was started by 
Adam Smith, and is worshipped by many to-day. If that 
were true, don't you think that the Manchester Ship Canal, 
and other undertakings that I could mention, would be verit- 
able gold mines ? In the making of a canal the cost is practic- 
ally all labour — digging — it is practically all labour, and yet 
we know that the original shareholders in the Manchester Ship 
Canal, instead of making wealth, have never seen a penny 
return on their capital in the last thirty years: If the theory 
were true, not only would the Manchester Ship Canal be a 
veritable gold mine, but the mere act of loading a ship, 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 279 

which is the greatest labour, I imagine, in connection with 
shipping, and the mere act of shovelling the coal on the 
boiler fires, which is, perhaps, in many parts of the world a 
still more laborious piece of work, ought to ensure a profit 
on the voyage, but w 7 e know they do not. We know that 
profits are not made because of the labour of loading the ship 
or merely putting coal upon the fire. The men who can 
make money are few. They are less than one per thousand 
who can make money at all other than by the receipt of wages 
for employment. They are less than one in a hundred thou- 
sand in the very high undertakings, and in the highest under- 
takings of all they are fewer than one in a million who can 
organize large undertakings to make money. This good old 
world has only produced one Ford, one Rockefeller, one Carnegie. 
I know these men are held up to odium because it is the fashion 
Let us see if they deserve it. Don't you think it was just 
as sensible of the old man who blew the organ to say that 
he produced the music as to say that it is labour that is the 
source of all wealth ? I like this illustration, because it is 
quite obvious that if the man ceases blowing the organ there 
will be no music ; but it is equally true that he may blow 
the organ as much and as laboriously as he likes, and that 
unless there is some one there to play and touch the notes 
with discrimination and skill there would be no music. And 
when we search how 7 these fortunes have been made by the 
three men I mention and by all others, what do we find ? 
We find that fortunes have only been made by producing 
goods cheaper and selling them cheaper, and by increasing 
the rate of wages paid to the worker and reducing the hours 
of labour. 

Take Ford's cars, for example. Ford started as a young 
man, and I think his first occupation was on a farm — his 
father's farm. Then he got an idea that he could make a 
motor that would do a lot of the farm work ; just the idea that 
he is putting into practice now r , thirty years later. He had 
thought on the farm, and he wondered if he could not make 
a motor to do a lot of the work on the farm, and he told his 
wife he would go to Detroit and see some of the machines ; 
so he went. He was a fairly successful farmer and he was 
making a fair sum of money. He closed down his farm, 
and he and his wife moved to Detroit, and he engaged him- 



280 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

self as engineer on the night shift to look after the Edison 
plant for lighting the city of Detroit, at something like a 
quarter of what he had been making as a farmer. He was 
quite content ; he had made up his mind he would get to 
the bottom, as far as he could, of the electrical problem; 
he found he would have to acquire a knowledge of electricity 
to make his motor, and he worked on and on, and you know 
the result. Now, does any man begrudge Ford his five 
millions sterling a year that he is making ? Fancy, that is 
£100,000 every week. Does any one begrudge it ? If any 
do I could imagine them saying to themselves — they would 
say it truthfully, I know — something like this : " It is true 
Ford serves the public with a cheap car and, for the price, 
a good car. It is true Ford serves his workers in his 
factories well, because he pays them double wages ; in fact, 
he starts a boy fresh from school at a pound a day. But, 
but, but, Mr. Ford, you make too much money ; you give 
the public cheap cars, you pay double wages in your fac- 
tories, but you make too much money for yourself ; that 
is our objection." Well, what would happen ? Would 
other men be encouraged to emulate Ford's example if, after 
all this toil of leaving the farm, working for a quarter of the 
wage while he mastered the subject, all this laborious work, 
he and his wife (a loyal and true wife, as every successful 
man has always had) working together — if the result of all 
that was to be told that he was making too much money? 
You might as well tell some of his men who were drawing 
double pay that they were making too much money. The result 
would be the race of Fords would die out, cars would cost 
the public more money, the wages to workmen would fall to 
the lowest Trade Union rate — that is, to half the rate Ford 
is paying — and the future Fords would have hard work to 
make bare interest on their capital. It would operate 
against all three. 

Now, let us imagine a scene at Ford's works. We will 
imagine that his 20,000 or so operatives — I am not sure how 
many he has, but we will say 20,000, it may be 40,000— 
read in the paper, the local paper, that Ford has made 
five million pounds sterling, twenty-five million dollars, 
the year before, and they have discussed that fact the night 
before, and they have come to the conclusion that Mr. Ford 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 281 

is making far too much and have decided that they will go 
and interview him, because "labour creates all wealth/' say 
they, " Adam Smith told us so, and, therefore, this money is 
not Ford's ; we make that money, we ought to have it." 
They go and wait on Ford and they lay their case before 
him fairly, perfectly fairly. Now we will imagine his reply. 
Now, Ford I imagine would say this : " Now, my men, I don't 
want you to make a penny of this money for me. Go right 
away and make it for some other motor man, one of my 
competitors, who cannot make money for himself, who is 
perhaps losing money. Leave me right away and go and engage 
with that man ; he will give you nearly all the profit ; he is 
losing money now or making none. You can make your 
own terms with him. He will give you at least nine-tenths 
of the profit, because if he got a tenth he would be content. 
You go and make him five millions and he will give you nine- 
tenths, or he will give you even more — perhaps he will give 
you nineteen-twentieths, perhaps even ninety-nine one- 
hundred ths of it ; but you can make your own terms with him. 
You will get splendid terms from him ; in fact, you can dictate 
your own terms. As to myself, those men who will be sacked 
from this motor man who is not making money, why, I will 
engage them ; it will be merely a change over. You men 
who are making my money will go and make it for these other 
people ; their workmen will come and work for me and I 
will pay them double wages as I am paying you, and I will 
see if I cannot make as much money without you as with 
you. I will put them in my factory and they can work for 
me. I do not want discontented men. I will engage these 
men, who will be perfectly contented as soon as they come 
to me, because they will be drawing the double amount of 
what they are drawing to-day ; I will pay them double wages. 
But I want you to be sure," he would say to them with a 
twinkle in his eye, " when you engage with your new masters 
you stipulate to receive the double wages whether he makes 
the profit or not — the same as I am paying you now ; do not 
trust yourselves or him to make profits for you ; insist on 
having the double wages I am paying you, and then, of course, 
make your claim for the profits in addition, because you say 
labour creates all wealth. Now, if you draw double wages 
from my competitors, it will make it easier for me ; for, paying 



282 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

only half my rate of wages, their cars are already dearer 
in price than my cars, and I shall have the trade more and 
more in my hands. This, of course, you will be able to do 
easily because you create the wealth ; out of that wealth 
you will draw the double wages, and you will draw the ninety- 
nine hundredths of the five millions you will be making for 
your new master, because you say you create it ; you make it ; 
it is yours, and take it and do not delay for a moment ; start 
right away, and I will swop employees with these men." 

Now, let us see, dismissing that picture — I will just 
leave it at that to you — what is the wealth that the masters 
make in the United Kingdom per head of the population 
and per head of the workers, because it is estimated that 
only three out of every five are workers. In the three I 
am including the wife — you will understand I am including 
all workers. Now, it is only pre-war income tax figures I 
can take, but on the top of pre-war figures we can add 
excess profits. If you will take the returns for 1913-14 
you will find the income from land and houses, which I am 
quite willing to throw in because we are going to divide every- 
thing else ; let us divide all there is. We cannot divide 
salaries, because we shall always want some one to do the 
work, and they will always want salaries paid in proportion 
to their appointments ; and the salaries paid to Govern- 
ment officials and Corporation officials also will have to be 
paid. I am merely speaking of the profits in business which 
we are proposing to confiscate ; and see how they work out. 
Now, the income from business, worked out per head of the 
population, is 4|d. per head per day of the people, and the 
income from land and rents of houses is 2jd. ; total, 6|d. 
The excess profits tax divides out at 3d. per head per day of 
the people — that is what the Government take. 1 The Govern- 
ment began by taking 50 per cent., then 60 per cent., and 
now it is 80 per cent. There is another 2jd. per head per 
day of the people that the maker of the excess profits is per- 
mitted to retain — total, is. per head per day ; now, dividing 
this over three out of every five, it is is. 8d. per head per day 
of the workers. Now, that would not eliminate poverty if 
we took it all, if we did not pay a penny to employers in 
England ; if we could get employers for nothing, that would 

1 In 1917. 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 283 

not remove poverty. In fact, since this war began, covered 
by the period when these excess profits have been made, 
wages, as you know, have risen from 2S. 6d. in some industries 
for unskilled labour to 5s. in others for skilled, and in a few, 
10s. per day per head ; so that in dealing with this money 
in the sense of confiscation, or any name we like to give it, 
all the wealth of the country would not relieve poverty or 
lift the workman much. No scheme of confiscation or redistri- 
bution can do that. The only way is the one we mentioned 
— increased production. This will enable wages to be 
advanced as I mentioned, hours of labour to be reduced, 
cost of production to be reduced. 

A policy of " ca' canny " defeats its own end. We can 
see in the building trade the policy of " ca' canny " can 
only increase the cost of building ; and whether the houses 
are built by the municipality or the State, or by private 
enterprise, wages will have to be paid in the building, material 
will have to be bought — and material is largely labour cost 
right up to the point of being on the job where the material 
is going to be used — and the amount of rent, either directly 
as rent or in rates and taxes, will be in proportion to the 
cost. If " ca' canny " is in the coal mine, then coals will be 
dearer. If " ca' canny " is in the factory, then boots, shoes, 
and clothes will be dearer. No " ca' canny " policy can 
produce wealth ; it is a robber of wealth and of fellow-work- 
men and reduces and lowers the level of every workman. It 
is not an uplifting force, it is a suffocating poison ; but it 
has its devoted disciples in many industries throughout the 
land, mistaken — don't think I am judging these men hardly ; 
I believe they are as honest in their efforts by " ca' canny " 
to help the working man as I am honest in my conviction 
that " ca' canny " is a blunder. All I want to endeavour to 
show is that the policy is wrong, not that the men's motives 
are wrong. If it was mere laziness, I would say it was a 
wrong motive ; if it was to save their own backs, I would 
say it was the wrong motive ; but when it is a belief that 
" ca' canny " will employ more labour, will make wages go 
up, and so on, then I say it is a mistaken policy. 

Now, it may be thought that we could get relief from 
Acts of Parliament. A noted man said — I think it was 
Herbert Spencer— that he had inquired into thirty-two Acts 



284 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

of Parliament that had been passed to benefit the worker 
and to relieve poverty, and twenty-nine out of the thirty-two 
Acts had produced exactly the opposite effect. Why, the 
so-called People's Budget, for which I voted with great 
pride and pleasure in 1909 — and I am not ashamed of 
having voted for it, because that Budget was sound so far 
as its taxation of wealth, its graduated income tax, its 
graduated death duties, and so on, went, all of which 
taxation ought to make us look gently on such clauses of the 
Bill as have failed to achieve the objects intended — now, 
that Budget has discouraged undoubtedly the building of 
houses for workmen throughout the land ; it has discouraged 
the landowner in developing his land ; it has not made 
prospective builders eager to buy building land ; in fact, for 
the scarcity of houses the workman is suffering from to-day 
the Budget of 1909 is partly responsible — not entirely re- 
sponsible, but it has tended in that direction. 

When the war first broke out, we thought employment 
was going to be very bad for the workman, and the Prince 
of Wales's Fund was started and five million pounds subscribed 
at once to assist the unemployed. People were urged not 
to discontinue any work that employed labour, but to start 
fresh work that employed labour — anything that employed 
labour. We all expected that the war was going to make 
employment very bad. The war has proved us all to be 
very bad prophets. Wages have risen, employment is to- 
day in the position that there are two jobs for one man. Now, 
why is this ? Why should a Bill called the People's Budget 
have failed to achieve the building of more houses, that part 
of the Bill which was intended to so achieve, and war has 
produced employment when it was expected that it would 
reduce employment ? Why is that ? W T ell, in the first 
place, the one has discouraged and, in the second place, not 
only in munition factories but in all other occupations, the 
war has been a stimulus and an invigorator to both men and 
women. From patriotism, from every motive, we have all 
worked harder in munition factories and in our ordinary 
occupations since the war. This has increased the wages 
fund, this harder work, greater employment, men, women, 
and girls employed who were formerly not employed. This 
has produced more wealth, not Acts of Parliament. It is 



^MMMBHMI 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 285 

our determination to win this war, the high, patriotic effort 
we have put forth, that has increased wages. Of course, there 
has always been the destruction of property in the form of shells, 
cartridges, guns, battleships, and ordinary ships, and so on — 
that is going on all the time — but the big factor has been 
the stimulus to us to work harder, the opportunity to work 
harder. With equal stimulus to work and without war, the 
demand for munitions would have been a demand for more 
boots and shoes, more houses ; but it has been the stimulus 
behind us to do our bit, and without that stimulus we would 
have been in chaos in this country, as many nations are. No ; 
we cannot increase our wealth by Acts of Parliament, because 
we cannot see far enough what are the cross-currents and 
under-currents that we have to face ; but we can organize our 
time and our work so that all shall have equal opportunities 
and none be overworked, and on that line, with increased 
machinery and a six-hour working day, higher wages, 
reduced cost and improved leisure, increased consumption 
can be attained. 

Now, who are the employers to-day ? You think I am 
one — great delusion. You think Ford is one — another 
delusion. We are not emploj^ers ; the people who employ 
myself, and every one who works in the business I am con- 
nected with, are the consumers. Let consumers buy other 
products made by other firms, and where are we all at our 
works ? Let the consumer of motor-cars buy other cars 
than Ford's, where are Ford and his workmen ? The em- 
ployer of Ford is the consumer. The employer of every 
master in the country to-day is the consumer, and 90 per 
cent, of the consuming power of products made by machinery 
in this country are the workmen themselves. Therefore, 
90 per cent, of those that employ me are working men and 
their families. I want you to bear that fact in mind. My 
employer is the consumer, and 90 per cent, of the consumers of 
my article are working men, and so with all the articles made 
in cotton-mills, boot and shoe factories, and so on. Well, 
now, don't you see that the real employer is the consumer, 
and not the capitalist — the so-called employer ? Don't 
you see that the consumer's own best interests must be to see 
that whoever is the nominal employer he shall be stimulated 
to bring out the best that is in him ? If you choose a chair- 



286 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

man for any of your committees, you choose one who has 
your confidence, and who you consider is likely to give the 
best results. If the capitalist is a Rockefeller, the con- 
sumer practically employs Rockefeller on the understanding, 
and only on that condition, that he shall bore oil wells, build 
oil refineries, lay pipe-lines, and build tank steamers to trans- 
port the oil, and that he does this work cheaper than any other 
capitalist can do it. That is the only basis on which Rocke- 
feller was ever employed. If the capitalist is a Ford, the 
consumer says to him that he can make motor-cars on condition 
that he build them better in quality for the price, and lower 
in price than any other capitalist can build motor-cars for. 
But that is the consumer's bargain with the capitalist. There 
is not one of your wives going into a shop to-day who must 
not be satisfied as to the quality and the price before she 
purchases an article, and she will buy where — I know you have 
all got good wives — she gets you the best value for your 
money always. But the workman, how does he approach 
the capitalist ? Labour says to Rockefeller or to Ford that 
they will only work for him on condition that he pays them 
the maximum wages ; Labour in effect says, " We are going to 
reverse this process on which we buy our goods, and we are 
going to apply our rights as consumers in buying goods on 
that principle ; but when we come to sell our labour we are 
going to sell it to the capitalist who gives us the most wages 
for our work, and we claim our right to both these privileges." 
And Labour can honestly claim the right when spending 
wages to get the best value obtainable, and when seeking 
employment tc get the highest wages for producing articles 
bought at lowest prices. It is as if Labour said to Capital : 
" You are only our agent or broker. If you can give us the 
highest price for what we have to sell and sell to us the pro- 
ducts of our own labour at the lowest price we can obtain 
the same for anywhere, then we will pay you a commission 
for so doing ; but if you lose money over the transaction 
you go down and out and into the bankruptcy court and you 
must not look to us for help." 

And what is this brokerage or commission ? I have shown 
you that the profits on trade would be 4^d. per head per day 
of the population : the excess profits retained by the capitalist 
2 Jd. per head per day ; total, 6Jd. (for the purpose of this illus- 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 287 

tration we are now dealing only with profits in trade, therefore 
I am leaving out, at the moment, land and houses) or about 
i id. per head per day of the workers. But from this we 
ought to deduct certain items that do not appear in the in- 
come tax returns. The bankrupt employers — employers who 
reach the bankrupcy court — their losses are not deducted 
from the income tax of the successful ; there is no deduction 
for interest on capital. Income tax returns include interest 
on capital. Whether our factories and machinery are State- 
owned, or whether they are owned by private enterprise, 
we shall always have to employ capital to pay out wages to 
the workman whilst building our new factories and new 
machinery. If w T e had obtained all our existing factories 
and machinery by confiscation, in twenty years we should 
have just as much capital raised to pay workmen to build 
new machines and build new factories. We cduld not get 
away from capital and interest. Now, if you deduct interest 
on capital and losses of bankrupt capitalists, you will find 
that the net profits do not work out at more than 3d. per 
head per day of the workers ; in other words, a most modest 
commission on the basis of the bargain, which is the highest 
wages for the workman and the cheapest selling price for the 
product of his labour. Abolish private enterprise, and you 
would not save the nd., you would not save the 3d. For 
competitive capital you would get State Civil Service ; every 
Government department, it is essential, must be run on what 
we call the lines of red tape. W^ages would become nominal, 
not real, and whatever wages were nominally, they would 
always represent reduced purchasing power to the consumer. 
Now, all I want us to ask ourselves is this ; whether working 
on lines such as we have hitherto worked consistently has 
not increased wages solidly and substantially ? Every oppor- 
tunity for advancing wages — and, believe me, the prosperity of 
a country depends as much upon high wages as upon any other 
element that can make a country prosperous — must be taken 
advantage of. But this means more machinery, and it has 
to mean, also, cheaper production. Wage increases must 
not be sham increases ; they must be real increases, with 
increased purchasing power, as well as increases in amount. 
I want us to realize that, and then on sound lines we can, 
I believe, realize all our ideals. 



288 THE SIX HOUR DAY 

But behind all this is the ambition that I rejoice at of the 
workers to control their own industries. I think that is one 
of the healthy signs of the day, and I can see it and feel it 
in the very fibre of my being, because, as I mentioned at the 
beginning, I began in a modest way and I have worked up, 
and I can realize your desire, the desire of every healthy 
man in the kingdom to raise himself and become pilot of 
his destiny. How can this be done ? The greatest attraction 
to me of the six-hour working day is the education of the 
young. I ask myself, Wlty should not the sons of the work- 
man have the same education as the sons of the master? 
They must have, if they are going to control industries in the 
next generation. Do not think for a moment that control 
can be achieved on any other lines ; but, with better educa- 
tion and with the same ambition to control industries, who 
can say nay to Labour ? But merely a desire to sit on a 
Board of Directors, without a knowledge of all that that 
position means, can help neither the workman, nor the in- 
dustry, nor the country ; there must be a period of training. 

But if we get this training we shall be a better nation physi- 
cally, we shall be better in brain power ; and note well this, 
and I say it without any hesitation : sons and daughters who 
are trained with hand and eye as well as brain will make 
better educated men and women than the mere University 
bookworm — infinitely better ; and, you may depend upon 
it, the control of industries in the future will go to those who 
can work them to the greatest advantage. The circum- 
stance that gave Ford his to-day's position was that he was 
thirty years ahead of anybody else when he was working on 
a farm, and he set himself to realize his ideals, and gave up 
the farm to obtain a bigger field for his energies. The circum- 
stance that made Rockefeller was that he had the conviction 
that single oil wells and single oil refineries, putting oil into 
casks and sending it on the train at high freights, was stupid, 
and he bought a number of oil wells ; he combined big oil 
refineries, he laid pipe-lines from the refineries to the coast, 
he put tankers on the ocean to bring the oil to England, and 
he brought the price of oil down from is. to 4d. a gallon, and 
in that process he made a fortune. Now, that is the way it 
will be for your sons, for my son, if they have to make money, 
if they have to raise themselves, have more comforts for them- 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 289 

selves and their children than we have had. We can only 
achieve these ideals by increased production. 

Education, the consideration of which I have left to the 
finish as the crown of all, is the keynote of the situation, 
and I would rejoice, as every one of you would, that the sons 
of the workman should be the equal in education of the sons 
of the master. But behind the master, behind the hollow 
title of employer, is the consumer, and the fact that 90 per 
cent, of the consumers are the working men and women, 
that the whole mass of the consumers of the country will 
be elevated and raised, the whole of our industries in which 
they are employed will be elevated and raised, and we shall 
march forward a proud nation to further achievements un- 
dreamt of even to-day ; and Great Britain, at home and over- 
seas, the largest Empire the world has ever seen, will contain 
a people whose joyous lives are spent in such happy surround- 
ings as are unknown to us in this room to-night, where life 
will lengthen and joy will deepen, and where happiness will 
be assured for all. 



20 



IV 

ZERO YIELDS OF CAPITAL AND 
LABOUR 

London, February 13, 1918. 

[The Royal Society of Arts devoted a considerable proportion of 
its proceedings during the winter of 1917-18 to problems of 
Reconstruction, and in pursuance of this design Lord Lever- 
hulme was invited to read a paper at one of its meetings. 
He gave cogent reasons against what is called " Conscription 
of Wealth," and set up instead an ideal of comradeship in 
the mutual relations of Capital and Labour. Mr. Robert 
Tootill, M.P. for Bolton, who presided on this occasion, and 
spoke with the authority of a Labour leader of many years' 
experience, echoed Lord Leverhulme's call for a real comrade- 
ship of Capital and Labour, and the late Sir Swire Smith, 
M.P., said the paper opened up a vision of what the country 
could do even in the present difficult circumstances. Here 
follows the paper :] 

We are living in strenuous times, and are making sacrifices 
of life and treasure on a scale that we are apt to believe is 
greater than our forefathers, even in their most difficult wars, 
were ever called upon to endure. But this is obviously only 
true of dimensions. It is not true of proportions to scale 
with the resources or wealth of the present British Empire, 
as compared with her former war periods ; nor is it true in 
relation to the resources Science has placed at our disposal 
for our more rapid recuperation from the effects of this war, 
by the exploitation and development of the nascent w T ealth 
that Nature, with lavish hand, has stored up for us within 
our boundaries. To realize the natural strength of the 
British Empire, let us think of it in the words of the poet : — 

As some tall cliff that lifts its awful form, 
Swells from the vale, and midway leaves the storm, 
Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread, 
Eternal sunshine settles on its head. 

390 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 291 

Our most cruel and deplorable loss in this war is the awfu 
sacrifice of human life. The irreparable, disastrous conse- 
quences to civilization and the progress of the world that 
must result from so many of the flower of our manhood having 
been taken from us it would be impossible to overstate. This 
welter of blood has made the world one huge sob and stifled 
moan. There is not one single family group in the whole 
of the peoples of the belligerent nations that has not to mourn 
some loved dear ones lost or returned mutilated and torn, 
blinded or crippled — the wreck and shadow of their former 
selves. No loving care nor patient toil can restore these or 
make good to us their loss. 

But for the rest the loss can, on certain well-known and 
proved established lines, be fully recovered, and most speedily 
of all the money wastage. Many worthy good souls are worry- 
ing themselves and the nation as to the undoubted load and 
enormous burden of national war indebtedness we shall 
have to carry when this war is over, and are worrying still 
more as to our ability as a nation to repay these debts. In 
their alarm, and suffering from an attack of nerves and cold 
feet, some openly advocate unblushing repudiation of our 
war debts, and call the same by some such specious name as 
Conscription of Wealth. And in their haste to propound 
this " cure all " for our ills they cannot even wait until we have 
won a decisive victory on the battlefield and obtained the 
unconditional surrender of our enemies, but must needs weaken 
the national credit by advocating this impossible policy 
even whilst the necessity for further borrowing still continues. 

There are seven pillars of national and individual prosperity 
and happiness. These are : — 



Justice. 


Science 


Truth. 


Art. 


Labour. 


Leisure 


Capital. 





The unit of the Empire, as of all democracies, is the home 
and fireside, and along the lines defined by the seven pillars 
of prosperity, individual nations and the home units have 
progressed from slavery to fullest liberty. What were the 
conditions of life in Great Britain in, say, Oliver Cromwell's 
time, when we experienced our greatest advance towards 



292 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

our present ideal form of Government — a Constitutional 
Monarchy ? London, even then, was the largest, the richest, 
and most populous city in the then-known world. Yet it 
was indescribably dirty, overcrowded, insanitary, badly lighted 
and worse drained, and neither health nor life w T as safe from 
attacks from disease, pestilence, or robbers and footpads. 
The then death-rate was over 49 per thousand in ordinary 
years, and much higher in years of special visitations of plague. 
In Oliver Cromwell's time, close to the then London, were 
25 square miles of swamps, which to-day are absorbed within 
the boundaries of the Metropolitan area, drained dry and made 
healthy and built over. In wet weather the streets and roads 
were impassable, a quagmire of mud, in which chariots, wagons, 
and carts sank to their axles. Robbers, footpads, and high- 
waymen made it dangerous to travel in daylight, and impossible 
at night to do so without being under convoy of a guard. 
In the United Kingdom at that time there were 34 counties 
without any, even the most primitive, form of printing press. 
The master flogged his apprentice, and the husband flogged 
his wife. The stocks, the ducking-stool, and the whipping- 
post were national institutions in the most public centres of 
every town and village. Even a century later we w r ere very 
little improved in our social life. 

What has changed all this to conditions such as exist in 
the United Kingdom to-day ? It has been the discoveries 
of science and the inventions of mechanics. About the close 
of the eighteenth century, Watt, Arkwright, Hargreaves, 
Crompton, Cartwright, and others invented various of our 
most important " key " mechanical utilities, such as the 
steam-engine, the spinning-jenny, the mule, the power-loom, 
the carding-machine, and scores of others. It is said that 
as a result of these inventions, twenty-five men and fifty women 
and boys can produce to-day as much cotton goods as could 
have been produced by the hand labour of all the men, women 
and boys that were engaged in the cotton industry in Lanca- 
shire in Oliver Cromwell's time. 

And what is the condition of London to-day ? The popula- 
tion is more than a scorefold what it was then, and it has be- 
come the cleanest, most healthy and sanitary, the best lighted 
and the best drained city, as it is also the largest city in the 
world And all traces of special visitations of plague or 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 293 

pestilence have ceased, and the death-rate is the lowest of 
any of the largest cities of the world, being no more than 
15 per thousand. 

And corresponding progress has been made in every city, 
town, and village in the country, and in the social betterment 
of the lives of the people, and the British Empire has become 
the greatest Empire in the world, not by repudiation of the 
Napoleonic War debts, not by Acts of Parliament, but by the 
steady maintenance of the beneficent support of the seven 
pillars of prosperity, and by the labour of employer-capitalist 
and employee-workman. These, as inventors, manufacturers, 
merchants, explorers, and shipowners, have often been handi- 
capped in the march of progress in competition with other 
nations by stupid Acts of Parliament and ignorant statesmen ; 
but in rectifying this handicap of progress let us be careful 
that we do not commit still greater errors of government in 
the future. Our best hope for the future is that the w T hole 
of the difficulties to be overcome, and of our social betterment 
to be achieved, shall be fully considered in all their bearings, 
shall be fully discussed and understood, before we enter upon 
the putting into effect of immature and ill-considered new 
and experimental policies. We must approach the considera- 
tion of the problem with minds free from thoughts founded 
on prejudice, hatred, or temper — free from taint of selfishness 
or injustice. Above all we must dismiss from our minds and 
souls any idea of what, for want of a better name, we call 
" class against class " antagonism. In all countries, throughout 
all ages, there have been numerous divisions of peoples into 
so-called " classes," but this good old world, large as it is, has 
never been big enough to contain more than a division into 
two great classes — the class that is doing its duty and the 
class that fails to do its duty. These two great divisions are 
wide enough and deep enough to include the whole human 
race, and all other distinctions are purely artificial. But we 
have got into a slipshod way of thinking of mankind as exist- 
ing in " classes," and nothing, in the present temper of the 
world, is more unjust or dangerous. Peer and peasant, 
employer-capitalist and employee-workman, have fought side 
by side in the trenches, and laid down their lives side by side 
on the battlefield in this great war, and as comrades in this 
war they honour and respect each other as never was possible 



294 THE SIX-HOUR I3AY 

before, and we have all learned thai in about equal pro- 
portional numbers there are included in all s the artificial 
" class " divisions the industrious and the idle, the intelligent 
and the stupid, the brave and the cowards, the honest and 
the cheat, the truthful and the liar, the virtuous and the 
vicious, the temperate and the drunkard, the strong and the 
weak, the healthy and the sickly, the thrifty and the spend- 
thrift, and that so long as these opposites of characteristics 
exist there will always be the rich and the poor. Let us 
uproot this habit of thinking of individuals according to 
certain artificial so-called " classes." Nothing is more unjust 
and nothing could be more dangerous. 

Long before this war began we were experiencing the influence 
in politics of a new Parliamentary Party, whose leaders scorned 
the beaten tracks of old-school politicians, and who called 
themselves the Labour Party. The employee-workmen, 
through their Trade Unions, have also become more active, 
and have rightly and properly — so long as they respect the 
just rights and liberties of others — organized to improve their 
position. The betterment of the condition of the employee- 
workers is declared, and I believe truly so, their sole objective 
and goal, but so far as my knowledge goes the employee-workers 
have not yet unanimously decided upon what might be the 
best methods for them to adopt to realize betterment and 
advancement. In short, whilst their aims, ideals and ambi- 
tions are clear and definite, their proposed methods for realiza- 
tion are most indefinite and hazy. 

When the dissatisfied colonists in North America won, 
under the leadership of General Washington, their severance 
from Great Britain nearly a century and a half ago, they 
declared as their ideals — and in these the whole English- 
speaking world agrees to-day — that all men were endowed 
by God with certain inalienable rights, amongst which were 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Washington and 
his co-founders of the United States believed and trusted 
that, if all men were given an equal opportunity, and if the 
citizens of a country could frame their own laws and levy 
their own taxes, the inequalities in wealth that existed in the 
Mother Country could never exist in the United States. This 
was the view held in 1776, and the founders of the United 
States were convinced that the rich and wealthy were rich 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 295 

and wealthy in consequence of some unfairness in the laws 
of the United Kingdom. But after nearly a century and a half, 
in spite of the Declaration of Independence as to equality, 
in spite of universal manhood suffrage, there are greater 
inequalities of wealth in the United States to-day than there 
are or ever were in the United Kingdom, and it is clear that 
neither Acts of Congress nor the Constitution of the United 
States have been able to make all men equal in wealth any 
more than in health, weight or stature, brains or muscle, 
piety or morals, character or worth. But this inequality of 
wealth, although infinitely greater in 1916 than in 1776 (at 
which time, as often is the case to-day, it was thought to 
be the cause of all the poverty of the poor), has been proved 
to have relieved the extremes of poverty and wretchedness, 
and to have greatly raised the average of comfort and better- 
ment, and to have resulted also in actually a better distribution 
and more plentiful supply of wealth amongst the employee- 
workmen. The United States has produced millionaires in 
greater number and of greater individual wealth than ever 
the United Kingdom produced, and yet the employee-work- 
man in that country receives the highest rate of wages known 
in the world. In 1776 it was believed that in the United 
Kingdom the Government had somehow interfered with some 
great principle underlying all social well-being, and that in 
the United States, under the Constitution adopted in the 
Declaration of Independence, wealth would be more equally 
distributed and poverty would cease. But the result has 
clearly proved that, so long as some men are stronger, or more 
healthy, or more intelligent, or more industrious, or more 
virtuous, or more self-denying, or more thrifty than others, 
there will be inequalities of wealth, that the employer-capitalist 
was not responsible for these, nor was the employee-workman 
to blame, and that, if either changed places with the other 
by Act of Parliament, that change over would constitute no 
remedy for acknowledged inequalities nor be a stimulus to 
social betterment for all. Emplo}fer-capitalists in acquiring 
their wealth by hard work of brain and energy of body have 
benefited not only themselves and their families, but have, 
even if unwittingly, conduced to the betterment of the em- 
ployee-workman and also to the progress of the whole of the 
industries of the United Kingdom. 



THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

And now I venture to assert, notwithstanding that all 
the above circumstances are inevitable and normal and 
natural, that still no employer-capitalist with a true feeling of 
brotherhood can be quite happy in the fullest sense in the enjoy- 
ment of wealth (the product of his own hard work, intelligence, 
self-denial and thrift, every penny earned without com- 
mitting injury to any man, and the acquisition of which has 
resulted in enormous benefits to his employee-workmen) 
without feeling a sense of dissatisfaction with present industrial 
conditions and a strong desire to improve them so that the 
employee-workman may be raised to a much higher level 
in social well-being. 

But this ideal cannot be achieved by an Act of Parliament 
for the conscription or confiscation of wealth. 

The men and women of British stock who crossed the Atlantic 
and founded the United States did not state in their Declara- 
tion of Independence that all wealth must be confiscated to 
the State. What they did declare was that man was endowed 
by God with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. Do these rights mean .that Government 
should conscript or confiscate the fruits of the industry of one 
man who had led a thrifty, wholesome, industrious life in 
order that Government might use the same for the benefit 
of men who had lived lives of exactly the opposite type ? 
That was certainly not what the citizens of 1776 ever intended. 
What was meant was that every citizen had the fullest liberty 
to live his own life and to make his own livelihood in his 
own way so long as that was honest and true, and that 
he was entitled to the full enjoyment of the product of his 
labour, whether of muscle or brain, and for the pursuit of 
his own happiness — also within honest and true limits — in 
his own way. 

And what was meant by liberty ? One of the best defini- 
tions of liberty has been stated by — if I remember correctly 
— a French Convention in the following words : " The liberty 
of one citizen ceases only where it encroaches on the liberty 
of another citizen." And as to the pursuit of happiness, 
John Bright has given us one of the best definitions of happiness 
in the following words: "Happiness consists in a congenial 
occupation with a sense of progress." In addition, this 
Declaration of Independence laid down the axiom that Govern- 



SOME .INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 297 

ments were instituted to preserve these rights to the people 
and that the people themselves were the source of all the power 
that Governments possessed. The force that has created 
the United States has not been Congress, nor was the British 
Empire built up by Parliament. There would have been 
no United States and no British Empire without the labour 
and toil and sweat of the people of the two nations. Govern- 
ments create no wealth as such, and possess no money but 
what they receive from the taxation of the people. All Govern- 
ments are paupers, and only exist in free democratic nations 
by the consent of the governed. All Governments being 
paupers, they have only two means for raising money — by 
taxation and by borrowing. In times of war or for great 
public undertakings such as waterworks, or municipal develop- 
ments, such as docks, etc., borrowing has had to be resorted 
to in the past years as in the present years, and will have to 
be resorted to in the years to come when this war is over. 
The power and ability of a Government to borrow and the rate 
of interest to be paid depend entirely on the credit of the 
Government concerned, and on the assured belief of the 
lenders in the borrower's ability and good faith for the due 
payment of interest and the repayment of the debt. Our 
British Imperial and Colonial Governments and our munici- 
palities have hitherto enjoyed the power to borrow all their 
requirements at the world's lowest rate of interest. This 
advantageous position is entirely due to public confidence 
in the honour, honesty, and good faith of our Governments. 
If we once shake confidence in either our ability or our willing- 
ness to repay our indebtedness, then our credit, our power 
to borrow, is either seriously damaged or may be hopelessly 
destroyed. And with this destruction of credit and confidence 
would come equally the ruin of our industries, and unemploy- 
ment and hunger would be our chronic condition. If we, as 
British citizens, cannot realize these truths, then we are in 
greater peril than if the Prussians had landed on our shores 
and were marching through an undefended country on defence- 
less cities and towns. The British Empire might recover 
in time from defeat in war, but the British Empire never could 
recover from its own default to repay its war loan indebtedness. 
The credit and confidence enjoyed by the British Empire is 
the one and only foundation on which stand, foursquare to 



298 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

all attempts to overthrow them, the prosperity and stability 
of British industries and ability to provide full v employment 
at full wages for the British workman. The repudiation of 
debt, or the so-called conscription of wealth, would be an 
assassin blow at the very heart of the British Empire. But 
even if it were a practical and honest policy, there would be 
two questions still that would arise and require to be answered 
— how could such conscription be accomplished, and what 
would it yield ? The suggestion is that we conscript sufficient 
of the wealth of the country on some graduated scale to enable 
us to repay at least £4,000,000,000 of war loan indebtedness. 
How would our Government collect this £4,000,000,000 and 
convert the same into cash ? — for it is obviously only as cash 
that w r ealth could be used for the repayment of war loans. 
At present this wealth exists in the form of furniture, pictures, 
china, works of art, houses, land, workshops, factories, 
machinery, ships, horses, cattle, sheep, and the thousands of 
other forms of wealth, including debentures, shares, mort- 
gages in public railways, industrial companies, municipal 
and dock loans, Government War Loans, deposits in banks 
and building societies. And this wealth includes the savings 
of the frugal father for his widow and children equally with 
those of the millionaire. We know the depreciation that 
takes place when trustees are forced to sell some portions of 
an estate in order to pay death duties. But only seme 
£30,000,000 a year are paid in death duties, and much of this 
we know has been received by the trustees in hard cash from 
banks and insurance companies. It is only a cautious estimate 
to assume that not more than two-thirds had to be raised by 
forced sales — say £20,000,000 a year. But to realize even 
this modest sum each year has tended to depress the market 
value of securities. So that it is clear that no market could 
be found for £4,000,000,000 of conscripted wealth at what 
I may call par value, and as practically every one with wealth 
would be sellers and there would be almost no British buyers, 
it is only reasonable to say that the £4,000,000,000 of con- 
scripted wealth would not realize in cash as much as 
£400,000,000. It would be almost valueless and unsaleable, 
and therefore not available for the purpose intended of repaying 
war loans. The confiscation of wealth would carry the 
country icebound below zero. Left to fructify in the pockets 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 299 

of its owners, we should have its yield in income tax and death 
duties to the State, and in employment for employee-workmen 
not only of the then existing factories and workshops, but 
still more important, of extensions and additions thereto, 
and for the provision of capital for working and building the 
same to be obtained on the credit of the security available. 
But conscript 10 per cent, or 20 per cent, of the wealth of 
the country, and not only would the conscripted portion be 
unsaleable, but the balance would be depreciated as security 
for credit to finance our industries to the lowest level of the 
conscripted portion. This would be like cutting out the 
roots of the tree to anticipate the next year's crop of fruit. 

But this cutting out of roots is certainly not what wise 
men would do. They would guard the roots, fertilize them, 
prune the dead roots, support the limbs and branches, protect 
from frost the blossoms, and finally reap an abundant harvest 
— growing larger in quantity and better in quality each year 
of patient care and cultivation. Therefore, our course for 
repayment of war loan lies in cultivating our industries and 
fertilizing them — root-pruning by death duties and collecting 
the harvest by means of income tax graduated so that all 
citizens with incomes of £80 a year and over contribute 
according to their means. In no other way can we realize 
so large a cash income to so speedily and quickly pay off our 
war loans, maintain British shipping and industries, find 
ever-increasing employment for British labour, and maintain 
British credit and the pre-eminent present position of our 
world-wide British Empire. 

It may be asked how steeply can income tax and death 
duties be graduated; the answer can only be, that if our 
needs require them, the only limit can be that point at 
which they yield the largest return to the State with the 
least injury to our industries. If income tax at 5s. in the 
pound and death duties at 20 per cent, yield the largest 
return to the State with least injury to our industries, and 
if income tax at 10s. in the pound and death duties at 
50 per cent, would yield actually less to the State and 
would also threaten our industries with ruin, then the lower 
figure without risk to our industries would be proved to be 
the only practicable rate. In other words, at the higher 
rates you would be killing the tree that bears the golden fruit. 



300 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

Every fanner and gardener knows that such a hint from 
Nature as to the limits of cropping as a decreased v yield would, 
if disregarded, sour the land and the plants, with ruinous 
results. The reduced yield from the higher rate would also 
prove that trade and commerce, house-building, shipbuilding, 
and our manufactures were suffering from being denuded of 
capital by excessive taxation, and that unemployment would 
soon be stalking, with famine and sickness, through our land. 
And we should find that a just, fair, and reasonable scale 
of graduated taxation would not only yield the largest amount 
of cash to the State, but that the remainder, left to fructify 
in the pockets of its producers, would act as a stimulus to the 
production of ever larger and larger taxable incomes, and to 
the employment of an ever-increasing number of employee- 
workmen by employer-capitalists, to the expansion of British 
shipping, trade, and commerce, and to the maintenance of our 
present pre-eminent position amongst the nations of the world. 
So graduated income tax has its zero-point. 

All that Freedom's highest aims can reach 
Is but to lay proportion^ loads on each. 
Hence, should one Order disproportion^ grow, 
Its double weight must ruin all below. 

No ! there is only this one way available to enable us to 
repay our war loans, to re-establish our mercantile marine, 
our trade, commerce and manufactures after this welter of 
a World War, and that is to stimulate the production of wealth 
and to tax the annual income to the limits of utmost }deld, 
but always so that the producers of wealth are encour- 
aged, stimulated, and left with the necessary means for the 
production of more wealth. This production of increased 
wealth will demand and necessitate that every adult man 
and woman of all classes shall, up to the limit of their abilities 
and capacities, work hard and strenuously for its production. 
But human strength has its economic zero-point also. If 
in the production of this wealth either the employer-capitalist 
or the employee -workman is overfatigued by working a 
longer number of hours than the limitations demanded by 
health and strength, then the result can only' be disastrous 
to the production of wealth. But if all adults, of both sexes 
and of all classes, peer and peasant, employer-capitalist and 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 301 

employee-workman, work each a reasonable number of hours 
per day, then, without overfatigue of any, we can produce 
a wealth of products sufficient for our own home markets 
and wants and for overseas exportation far in excess of any- 
thing we have ever previously accomplished. The exact 
number of hours that will produce overstrain and fatigue, 
with resulting lower production, will obviously vary with the 
nature of the occupation and with the conditions under which 
the work is performed. On the farm, for instance, and on 
board ships, surrounded by green fields or green ocean and 
fresh air, the hours worked may presumably be longer than 
would be possible in factories, mines, workshops, foundries, 
offices, or stores, where perfect ventilation is never quite attain- 
able and where the occupation is more or less monotonous. 
But in every kind of work and employment there must be 
some limit to human strength and endurance, and experience 
has taught us that between eight hours a day as a maximum 
and six hours a day as a minimum, the safety-point may 
most probably be found to rest. These hours of daily toil 
are what may be called the income-making period — the 
remaining hours are available not only for sleep, eating, 
recreation, and leisure, but also for education and public 
service and all the refinements of life. St. Paul has told us 
that he " laboured with his hands that he might be chargeable 
to no man," and we know that he was by trade a tentmaker. 
The hours of labour for tentmakers were, I am told, at that 
time from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m., that is, six hours per day, 
and the remaining hours St.ePaul devoted to his life's work — 
service to his fellow-man. Let us organize our time better 
At present all our time is devoted to gathering income for 
maintenance, as if we were so many cows and sheep, all of 
whose time we know is devoted to the work of maintenance. 
Our factories, foundries, mines, workshops, stores, offices, 
and farms, throughout the British Empire, are full of men 
or women with ideals and ideas for utilities and inventions, 
and who, in addition to their capacity for the work of income- 
earning for maintenance and support of themselves and 
families, are capable of, and keen for, work of enormous social 
value to their fellows and the Empire. What a wealth of 
inventive genius and ideas have we there running actually 
to waste through our bad organization of their hours of work 



302 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

and their subjection to overstrain and fatigue in the perform- 
ance of the daily round of routine duties for income-producing ! 
Under our present system, each day has to be fully occupied 
beyond the fatigue -limit in work of income-earning for main- 
tenance, with the result that our machinery is underworked 
and our workers are overwrought, giving us less wealth, pro 
duced at greater cost than need be the case. Thought and 
ideas for new inventions and processes require intelligence, 
alertness, and leisure — all impossible under conditions of over- 
fatigue during long hours of laborious toil. Then see how the 
wage and salary fund is impoverished. We can only work our 
machinery and mechanical utilities longer hours by working 
human beings fewer hours. We have already exceeded the 
limit of human endurance from schoolage to dotage. But we 
can reorganize our factories so that by working a number of 
change shifts of employee -workers six hours each shift we 
can run our machinery twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four hours 
each working day. The wages paid at present for longer 
hours would require to be paid for the fewer hours, and in 
order to do this the total cost of production, which is partly 
interest, depreciation and repairs for machinery, all of which 
would be little if at all increased by the additional hours 
worked, would on an increase of from 50 to 200 per cent, in the 
output give us lower costs out of which wages could be increased 
and selling price to customers reduced. And, believe me, it 
is impossible to lay too strong emphasis on this crux of the 
whole proposal, which is the one and only basis which would 
make reduced hours and higlier wages possible, namely, 
reduced final costs and lower selling prices for the consumer, 
with more wages to the worker and fewer hours of toil. The 
employer-capitalist could, of course, work with a lower per- 
centage of profit and yet realize on his increased production 
a larger income to meet the demands made upon him for 
higher graduation in rates of income tax. 

But in addition to a better organization of time in our 
industries, we require to still further advance in the direction 
of a more logical basis in the relationship between the em- 
ployer-capitalist and the employee-worker. There must be 
some consideration given to the division between these two 
of the profit resulting from the joint labour of both. The 
wages system alone is not sufficient, but the wages system 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 303 

must of necessity remain the basis for the employee-worker. 
It is a system that has stood the test of time ; it is con- 
venient ; it is logical and practicable. Under the wages 
system the employee-worker practically says to the employer- 
capitalist : "I cannot undertake to bear any of the risks of 
this business. I must receive a weekly or monthly income, 
regularly, upon which I can absolutely rely and depend for 
my household expenses : therefore, if I engage with you we 
must mutually first agree on a sum which you shall pay me 
as wages or salary in exchange for my services. If after 
paying this sum of money to myself and also after your 
payment of all other expenses of the business there is a profit 
remaining, I agree that profit shall be yours. If there is a 
loss, you must make good that loss yourself alone, even to 
the extent of bringing ruin and disaster upon yourself and 
your family. I cannot share with you your losses, and I 
agree to make no claim upon you to share in your profits." 
This, I repeat, is the logic of the present wages system, and it 
is perfectly sound and just in its basis and principles. 

The admission to Co-Partnership is not a right that the 
employee- worker can of necessity claim. It is obvious that 
there must always be the right with each of us to choose 
our partners by mutual consent if the true Co-Partnership 
spirit is to be maintained. The employer-capitalist can choose 
his partners, and does choose them, from those who can give 
him the best help and can best strengthen his business, 
either by contribution of capital or assistance in the manage- 
ment of the business ; and in making this selection of partners 
every care and effort is directed to avoiding entering into a 
partnership that may prove undesirable in practice. The 
happiest and most successful relationships in business life 
have been realized under the partnership system, and it is 
equally true that occasionally, from various causes unforeseen 
at the time, private partnerships have proved disastrous, 
both from the point of view of prosperity of the business and 
the happiness of the partners. But the intention has always 
been the same, namely, to help and strengthen the business 
and to share the responsibility and risks of the business 
between the partners. I am confident that, viewed in this 
light and not as a profit-sharing device, which in my opinion 
would be wrong, a Co-Partnership relationship with the 



304 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

employee-worker would be an added source of strength to 
any business to which it could be applied, and increase the 
prosperity and happiness of both the employer-capitalist 
and the employee-worker. The principles of Co-Partnership 
between these two would be as logical and as sound and practi- 
cal a business arrangement as between any body of partners, 
and one that might be just as wisely entered upon. 

Under the operation of our modern industrial developments, 
capital is generally raised from a body of shareholders, in the 
form of ordinary shares. These ordinary shareholders divide 
amongst themselves the total remaining profits of the business 
after payment of all claims for salaries, wages, interest, and 
other prior charges. The ordinary shareholders of a company 
are practically the partners who control the destinies of the 
company by their vote, but it is very rare for any of them 
to be engaged actively in the business as employee- workers. 
It can never be a source of strength to the business that the 
whole of the surplus profits, after paying a reasonable and 
proper rate of interest, should be entirely devoted to dividends 
to ordinary shareholders. I am convinced that the best 
interests of the ordinary shareholders would be better served, 
both in regard to the rate per cent, of their dividends and 
the security of their capital, if the surplus profits could be 
divided, under some scheme of Co-Partnership, between the 
employee-workers and the ordinary shareholders of the 
business. 

It is not in the best interests of the success of any business 
nor the progress and development of British industries as 
a whole that the entire surplus profits should take only one 
channel, and that channel a direction away from those most 
interested in the business, and upon whom must depend the 
continued success of the business. It would not be right 
to view this question of Co-Partnership from any benevolent 
point of view. There can be no philanthropy in business. 
But the cultivation of a spirit of Co-Partnership and of a 
keen interest in the firm in which the employee-workers are 
engaged is not philanthropy but sound policy. The whole 
of the goodwill of any business, which goodwill is often of 
greater value than the actual bricks and mortar, plant and 
machinery, depends on mutual confidence. The employer- 
capitalist and the ordinary shareholders to-day view the 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 305 

employee-worker solely as a liability. Employees are not 
liabilities, but the most valuable asset of any business. 

An objection often raised to Profit-Sharing, and I think 
rightly raised, is that there can be no Loss-Sharing. Under 
the system of Co-Partnership, Loss-Sharing can be linked up 
with participation in profits. After all, what are the losses 
of capital for the employer-capitalist ? His losses of capital 
are that certain shares that he holds, by purchase or original 
application and payment, have become valueless because 
they have ceased to have earning capacity. One has often 
heard of shares in some company that has entirely lost its 
earning capacity being only fit to make into spills to light 
cigarettes with — their capital value has become nil. Equally, 
the Co-Partnership certificates issued under a scheme of Co- 
partnership to the employee-workers would be only so many 
specimens of printing and absolutely valueless, if the power 
of the business to earn profits had ceased, notwithstanding 
all the efforts of employer-capitalist and employee-co-partner. 

It is quite obvious that under a system of Co-Partnership, 
whereby an employee-worker receives each year an allot- 
ment of Co-Partnership certificates, in proportion to the 
amount of his salary or wages and the length and value of 
his services, and which Co-Partnership certificates are, during 
the Co-Partner's connection with the firm, entitled to dividends 
in proportion to the dividends paid to the ordinary share- 
holders, the Co-Partner would see the number of Co-Partner- 
ship certificates growing each year. He would experience 
the fact and realize the cause why dividends in some years 
were higher than others, and why in some years, from un- 
avoidable causes, dividends might fail to be earned or paid. 
He would realize the direct connection between profits and 
all the problems that the Management have to solve in a 
business, and in this way the employer-capitalist would have 
secured a partner whose brain would be at work as well as 
his hands in effecting economies and avoiding waste in the 
business, and in making suggestions for the improvement 
of processes and improvement in the organization of the time 
of himself and comrades, so that profits might be increased 
and higher dividends be paid. 

I claim that the employer-capitalist is not reasonable if 
he expects, in exchange for wages, any more than the per- 

21 



306 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

formance of the services which he has contracted for. But 
in addition to services that could be rendered on a wages 
system, there is that constant thought and care outside business 
hours equally as during business hours for the good of the 
business which the employer-capitalist himself does constantly 
manifest, or his capital would be in danger and his profits 
might never materialize. 

Under a system of Co-Partnership the employer-capitalist 
would have all his employee -workers who had been with him 
a certain number of years as Co-Partners, now realizing that 
their interest in the business equally with that of the employer- 
capitalist ran along the lines of increased output and of cheaper 
costs of production, and there would come what I may call 
" team-work/ ' which in the Army is, as you know, called 
esprit de corps, and which results in a spirit of comradeship 
in overcoming all obstacles, and which spirit is specially 
manifested in times of difficulty and danger. 

And now let me say a word on the value of a better organiza- 
tion of time devoted to income-earning in its effect on educa- 
tion of brain, body, and mind, and the power it would give 
the State for training citizens for military service. In all 
change shifts the shift workers who one week worked in the 
morning would the next week work in the afternoon, so that 
there would be for every one the morning or afternoon free 
each week alternately From fourteen to eighteen years of 
age there would be for boys and girls two hours morning or 
afternoon each day required by the State to be devoted to 
higher grade education and physical training. From eighteen 
to twenty-four the State would require that these two hours 
be devoted each day to technical and higher education, such 
as is provided to-day only in our Universities, and for physical 
training, and from twenty-four to thirty years of age the State 
would require that these two hours each day be devoted to 
military training and preparation for National Service. After 
thirty years of age the citizen would have completed his period 
of compulsory attendance under State Regulations, and would 
be fully equipped by education and training for all the duties 
of citizenship, and might reasonably be trusted to make, as 
did St. Paul, but in his own way, his own voluntary contribu- 
tion to social advancement and betterment. 

But whilst my endeavours have been to record the views 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 307 

I hold, and hold very strongly and sincerely — that Govern- 
ments of themselves cannot create wealth, and that the power 
of Governments to confiscate or tax wealth is strictly limited 
within the range of such rates as will produce the largest cash 
income for the service of the State without danger of check 
or hindrance to the production of wealth and opportunities 
for employment — and whilst I have endeavoured to show that 
we shall require the labour of all adults of both sexes and of 
all classes, from peer to peasant, to repay our war indebtedness 
and to provide products for home consumption and for ex- 
portation overseas ; and have, further, endeavoured to show 
that work also has its limitations of profitable production, 
and that to overstrain emplo3 7 ee -worker or employer-capitalist 
is not to produce the best results from either, I hold equally 
strongly that Governments can render such services of the 
State as will furnish opportunities and facilities, encourage- 
ment and stimulus for the creation of wealth by the citizens 
who have entrusted the State with powers of government. 
The State should and could make concentrated and well- 
considered efforts to provide every facility for honourable 
enterprise and honest industry. Our mercantile marine 
must be protected at sea and provided with ample harbour 
and dock facilities in the ports of the Empire. Shipowners, 
manufacturers, and merchants must be encouraged and helped 
by an efficient Consular and Foreign Office service so that our 
ships may sail over every sea and our flag be flying in every 
port. The State can improve our banking system by en- 
couraging and stimulating our bankers to render increased 
credit facilities for the manufactures, trade, commerce, and 
mercantile marine of the Empire. In our Crown Colonies 
our Government can construct roads and bridges, build rail- 
ways, open up new and rich territories of virgin forests, fertile 
soils, and rich minerals to developers, planters, and traders 
on terms that would encourage and justify private enterprise 
in the investment therein of capital. The State can improve 
the sanitation and healthiness of our villages, towns, and cities 
at home and in the Colonies, and so not only lengthen human 
life but reduce the toll on productiveness caused by ill-health. 
Government can protect child-life and see to its welfare, and 
can improve our educational system so that we get the utmost 
in the finished product for the many millions we spend upon 
education, so that the child of the employee-workman can 



308 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

have the opportunity of becoming as well educated as the 
child of the employer-capitalist. Government can remove all 
incidence of taxation and rating, local or Imperial, from im- 
provements on land such as houses and buildings of all kinds 
and from machinery, and provide that all such taxation and 
rating shall, in future, be provided from local and Imperial 
income tax source and on site values. All obstacles, in short, 
for the development of the resources of the Empire at home 
and overseas must be removed and every facility, encourage- 
ment, and security be given to stimulate the production of 
wealth, otherwise what right or title have we members of the 
British race at home and overseas in the possession and en- 
joyment of a world-wide Empire on which it is our boast 
that the sun never sets ? If our Government is not sufficiently 
far-sighted or so wise as to foster facility and encourage great 
industries capable of producing enormous surplus wealth 
by the enterprise of her citizens within this world-wide Empire, 
which would not only find employment for all but provide 
a basis for taxation of incomes that would enable us to repay 
our war debts, then the British Empire is suffering from the 
palsy of old age, and we shall soon cease to exist as a World- 
Power. Empires rise and fall as they are well and wisely 
or badly and stupidly governed. Under wise government 
they become rich and powerful, their ships sail over every 
sea and carry the national flag into every port ; their Colonies 
cover whole continents ; their peoples are happy and contented, 
well housed and well fed, and not overwrought to maintain 
themselves in comfort in homes where, with wife and children, 
life lengthens and joy deepens ; their rulers and statesmen 
are honoured and respected by surrounding nations, who can 
view without bitter feelings of wrong to themselves a world- 
wide Empire wisely governed with every facility and oppor- 
tunity, and where welcome is given to all right-minded citizens 
of all right-minded nations. Nothing can be better for the 
progress of civilization and the well-being of the whole world 
than such a government of such an Empire. And it must 
with equal truth be stated that there can be no more pitiable 
sight in the whole world than such an Empire held and pos- 
sessed by a nation that has neither the vision nor the intelli- 
gence to wisely develop or justly govern. " Where there is 
no vision, the people perish/' 



DAY-WORK OR PIECE-WORK— WHICH ? 

Port Sunlight, January 13, 1904. 

[Submitting theory to the test of practice, and keeping the two 
in close mutual touch, Lord Leverhulme, in this paper, which 
was read before the Port Sunlight Mutual Improvement 
Society, communicates his thoughts on the resources, possi- 
bilities, and consequences of Socialism and Individualism.] 

It has always appeared to me that the question of Socialism 
or Individualism resolves itself very largely into a question 
of Day-work or Piece-work. We require to produce commo- 
dities for mutual consumption, and Socialism would appear 
to be a question of whether these can best be produced by a 
system of Day-work, and Individualism to be a question as 
to whether it would be more profitable to the community as 
a whole to produce them by what may be called Piece-work. 
We all agree that evils exist in the great extremes of wealth 
and poverty in the world to-day, but when Socialists propose 
remodelling society on a very high plane of intelligence, they 
do so without first endeavouring to find out what are the lines 
on which society can best make progress. If Socialists would 
content themselves w T ith pointing out the goal which we are 
all aiming for, namely, the greatest possible amount of social 
well-being and comforts for all, and then if they would join 
in concentrated efforts to the discovery of what direction 
ought to be taken to ensure these benefits in accordance with 
the principles underlying all society, I venture to think that 
we should make greater progress in the future than we have 
done in the past. Sometimes we can see, say in Switzerland, 
a beautiful mountain whose summit is clothed in perpetual 
sunshine, but if in attempting to reach that summit we dis- 
regard all the precipices and ravines that have to be crossed — 
make no effort, in fact, to discover the only road that can 



310 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

safely be taken — in all probability we shall never arrive at 
the summit. 

So with a higher civilization we cannot disregard the con- 
stitution of society, nor can we disregard the very slow rate 
of progress we can make in the future, as we have made in 
the past, during the countless ages mankind has taken to 
develop to our present not very high state of civilization. 

Now, before we come to the question of its distribution, 
let us consider what are the elements that enter into the 
creation of wealth. The principal elements are three : Labour, 
Capital, and the Employer. It is not a question of Labour 
and Capital alone ; the Employer is as essential as the other 
two, and the Employer may be a private individual, or a 
Board of Directors, or a Government or State. Labour is 
wisely represented when organized by Trade Unions work- 
ing on their own individual lines. Now, in the production of 
commodities the payment of wages to Labour is under the 
present conditions the first fixed charge which has to be met. 
The next fixed charge is the payment of interest on capital. 
The payment to the emploj^er comes last and is not fixed : 
it is variable. In fact, all that the employer can get for 
his labour is the leavings after Capital and Labour have 
received what has been agreed upon. 

Sometimes there will be a loss ; that is to say, not only no 
leavings at all, but an actual loss, in which case, after the 
employer has been exhausted, Capital may share in that 
loss. But under the present conditions not only is it a fact, 
but it is a law of the land, that the payment of wages must 
not suffer loss under any circumstances whatever. Therefore, 
under the present state of society, payment for labour is a 
first charge on production, equivalent to a first mortgage or 
a debenture bond. 

Now, what do the Socialists propose ? They propose to 
nationalize all the implements of production and to make 
the State the owners of all capital, and therefore the one and 
only employer. But, by nationalizing the implements of 
production they will not have abolished capital : they will 
have altered the nominal ownership of capital, but* they 
cannot abolish capital, and for this reason — that capital is 
essential to production. Now, let us suppose it was considered 
that as a first step towards nationalizing the implements of 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 311 

production, mills, tools, machinery, and railways should all 
be confiscated. I don't suppose that this is seriously proposed 
by Socialists or by any one, but we will imagine for the 
moment that confiscation would be carried out and private 
ownership cease. That would not abolish capital. Railways 
would wear out, mills would become old-fashioned as to 
machinery, and would want renewing ; and how would this 
wearing out be remedied and machinery be renewed ? It 
could only be by the employment of labour to build fresh 
mills, to make fresh railways, and for this work labour would 
have to be paid. To provide payment for labour, loans 
would have to be raised on the credit of the nation as a whole 
and interest on them would have to be paid. Therefore, 
although temporarily, for a few years only, by the confiscation 
of all the means of production, the private ownership of the 
capital of the country might cease, this would not be per- 
manent. From the very moment the nation took over the im- 
plements of production there would be decay going on, renewal 
would become necessary, and capital would again assume its 
position and would again be a charge on the undertaking. 

Neither would Socialists have abolished the employer, 
whose salary is at present a variable quantity. The employer 
would still be required just as much in the nationalized indus- 
tries as when enterprises were carried on by private individuals, 
but under the new conditions the employer — that is, the 
State — would be represented by managers, who would have 
to be paid fixed salaries. Then we should have effected this 
change only : that whereas formerly the employer took for 
remuneration only the leavings (if any) of Capital and Labour, 
the employer would now take, as manager representing the. 
State, a fixed salary to be added to the cost of production. 

We have still got Labour to consider. Now, we have seen 
that under the present system Labour receives wages whether 
production is successful or not, and we have also seen that 
under the altered system proposed by Socialists, managers, 
representing the employer, would require to receive fixed 
salaries, whether production was successful or not, and would 
rank equal wifh Labour as a prior charge on production. 
When accounts came to be balanced in these nationalized 
industries, they could only be balanced by advancing the 
prices of the articles produced, at the expense of Labour, 



312 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

because Labour is always the greatest consumer. The con- 
sumption of products being mainly by Labour, it would result 
that the wages of Labour would cease to be real and become 
nominal ; that although wages had apparently not been 
reduced, their purchasing power had been reduced, and that 
therefore Labour would actually be receiving less in real 
wages, although the same in nominal wages : consequently, 
under the system proposed by the Socialists, Labour would 
have changed places with the employer. 

Now, with regard to the employer. Management, to be 
really effective, must have a direct interest in the results of 
its labour. There is a peculiar quality, call it temperament 
or what you will, about management, that is produced under 
the present system by which management is the employer 
and is compelled to take risks, inculcating that alertness and 
activity of mind, that perfect mingling of caution with 
audacity, that grasp of possibilities, opportunities, and con- 
tingencies, which makes all the difference between success and 
failure, Therefore, Management, being paid a fixed salary, 
would not be brought into that state of tension, that bending 
of the bow, as it may be called, which is so "essential to good 
management. Not being controlled by Labour, because 
Management would still have to control Labour ; not being 
controlled by Capital, because Capital would still be a fixed 
charge on the business, but being controlled perhaps by 
some elective body, taking the form probably of a council 
appointed or elected for the purpose, the whole temperament 
of Management would be changed, and I venture to say it is 
not in that way that we can improve the position of Labour. 
The bow would be unbent and useless. 

The profits earned by employers are not great, if averaged 
over the whole of the industries of the country. If we include 
those undertakings which, instead of making profits, are 
making losses, and take the average over all, I venture to say 
that employers as a body would make more money as man- 
agers under a system of fixed salaries than under the present 
system, and that the production of goods would not be cheaper 
but dearer under the system advocated by Socialists than 
under our present system, imperfect as that system is and 
wasteful in many directions. 

Well, now, we want to consider another point in the case : 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 313 

I refer to the statement that Labour is the source of all wealth. 
I think it was Adam Smith who first uttered this fallacy. 
It is a great fallacy, and one that has done the greatest possible 
harm. But supposing it were the truth, then I think we 
should agree that if Labour created all wealth, Labour must 
possess all wealth, and any attempt to take any portion of 
wealth from Labour was an act of robbery. Well, let us 
see what the income tax returns will teach us as to what 
is the wealth that is created, and what it would amount to 
if equally divided amongst our 42,000,000 of population. 
Now, the first portion of the wealth we have in this country 
is the land, and the income received from the land. To the 
extent that land is a monopoly it ought to be the property 
of the people ; to the extent that land yields an income to 
private enterprise, there would be no gain in it becoming 
the property of the people. But all monopolies in every 
free country ought to be retained in the hands of the 
people. Now, the income tax returns for 1902 show that 
the income in the United Kingdom received from land and 
occupation of land was about £70,000,000 sterling. Let us 
try and divide this income amongst all the inhabitants 
of the United Kingdom on the grounds that all good 
government must have for its basis the greatest good of 
the greatest number, and consequently that we have the 
right to nationalize the land without paying a penny piece 
of compensation to the owners of it ; in other words, to 
confiscate it — and we shall have one penny per head per 
day to give to every man, woman, and child in the United 
Kingdom. That would not be any great wealth. That 
will not lift us very far. None of us will be very wealthy 
on one penny per head per day more than we have got now 
Now, let us come to the houses that are on the land, and let 
us suppose we confiscate these also, whoever they belong to : 
the widow, the orphan, the building society, or the millionaire. 
Let us consider how we should stand if we confiscated all 
the houses on the grounds that if Labour created all wealth — 
and houses are a very substantial form of wealth — then the 
income from the houses so created ought to belong to Labour. 
Let us confiscate the income from all houses and try if that 
will help us. The income, as shown by the income tax 
returns for 1902, received from houses in the United Kingdom 



314 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

is £184,000,000 a year. Let us divide this amongst the inhabi- 
tants. It comes to 3d. per head per day when divided amongst 
our 42,000,000 inhabitants. That won't make us very rich 
either. We have got a penny from the land and threepence 
from the houses. Well, this is not very encouraging, and as 
we go through the remaining income tax returns, I am afraid 
the next item is less so, since when we come to consider the 
income that is received from the National Debt, we cannot 
confiscate that, because later on we are likely to want to 
borrow money to rebuild our works, and if a nation does not 
pay its debts it would not be able to borrow money at all. 
Therefore we cannot, for the sake of our own future, confiscate 
the interest paid on our National Debt, and we must pass 
by that source of income. We come next to the salaries of 
Corporation officials and civil servants. It is a very large 
item. We see from the income tax returns civil servants 
and Corporation officials receive amongst them £79,000,000 
a year. We cannot confiscate that, because we shall want 
servants, and we cannot get a man unless we pay him a 
salary. It is quite clear that, if the workman in the factory 
is to have his wages, we cannot confiscate the salary of the 
man in the office, and therefore we cannot confiscate this 
income, but must pass it over. We now come to foreign in- 
vestments, which bring in about £65,000,000 a year. We have 
no power to confiscate this income, because if we attempted 
to do so, such income would never reach this country. Sup- 
pose that the holder of investments in American railways 
found that the minute the dividends from the same reached 
this country they were confiscated, the holder would write 
abroad stopping this flow of dividends to this country and 
would invest the same abroad, and our country would be 
the poorer and not the richer, owing to the fact that these 
dividends would never reach us. Therefore, we could not 
confiscate them. 

Now we come to something at last we can confiscate. 
We can confiscate all the profits of all employers, and of 
course our grounds for doing so would be that if Labour 
creates all wealth, Labour ought to possess all wealth. I 
quite agree with that view, if it is a fact that Labour creates 
all wealth. Let us see what would be the wealth we had to 
divide. It appears from the income tax returns to be 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 315 

£361,000,000 a year, but this also includes the salaries of all 
salaried servants receiving £160 a year and over, and also 
the earnings of all professional men. We can certainly con- 
fiscate that, and we ought to confiscate it, if Labour has created 
it all. Still, we should want managers, lawyers, doctors, etc., 
and supposing the number of managers, lawyers, doctors, 
etc., would not be less, nor the salaries paid less than we now 
pay Government and Corporation officials, then we should 
have, after deducting for salaries, etc., as above, £282,000,000 
that we can divide. If we divide £282,000,000 sterling, we 
get 4|d. each per day more for every man, woman, and child 
in the United Kingdom. There is no great wealth there. 

Add this to the 4d. a day from land and houses, and we 
get 8|d. each per day for every man, woman, and child to 
receive. Therefore, we find that if Labour does create all 
wealth, as it is said to do, when you come to divide the pro- 
duct there is nothing to divide. It has vanished. It has 
been a shadow, this 8|d. per' day. Now compare that with 
the benefits that Labour has received during the last thirty 
years through the operation of natural forces and of its Trade 
Unions. The Board of Trade Returns show that Labour has 
received 20 per cent, increase in wages, accompanied by 25 
per cent, decrease in the cost of commodities, which means 
that for every 20s. paid in wages thirty years ago there is 
now 24s. paid, and the commodities that cost 20s. thirty 
years ago now cost 15s., a solid gain of 9s. per week for Labour. 

So we find that by peaceful processes, working in the ordi- 
nary way, Labour has secured benefits solid and substantial, 
more surely and probably more lasting than it would have 
secured by confiscating the capital of the country and all 
the implements and means of production. 

Therefore, we may adduce from this that Labour has re- 
ceived the whole of what Labour has created, and that any 
attempt to enrich any one section of the community at the 
expense of any other section is not likely to be successful. 
We can only improve the well-being of the whole nation by 
improving the well-being of every section of the community. 

Now let us see whether, if Socialism could only have brought 
us to this point, profit-sharing could not have brought us any 
nearer to our ideal. I think you will agree with me that 
the profits we should have had to divide would have been 



316 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

£347,000,000, and against that we should have had to deduct 
the salaries of salaried servants and the earnings of lawyers, 
doctors, and other professional men, and in addition interest 
on capital. The result would probably be that we should 
not have so much as 2d. per day for each man, woman, and 
child in the United Kingdom, Therefore, I think you will 
agree with me that those Trade Unionists who have always 
looked on profit-sharing schemes with distrust, and who prefer 
to depend upon their own organizations for increases of social 
comforts and increases of wages, have acted wisely. They 
are more likely to get increases of social well-being and com- 
forts in that way than by any profit-sharing scheme. We 
now ask ourselves how it is that, if it be true that Labour 
creates all wealth, Labour is not better off than a paltry 
8-|d. per head per day if all wealth that we could confiscate 
were divided equally. The answer to that is that Labour 
does not create all wealth ; the wealth is created jointly by 
Labour, Capital, and Employer, and of those three Labour 
is in the most favoured position, but none of the three 
can create wealth without the other. . My objection to 
Socialism is that it would attempt to benefit some at the ex- 
pense of others. You cannot increase the wealth of any one 
class by lessening the wealth of any other class, as stated 
already. You cannot increase the wealth of the community 
or of any class permanently by any method of confiscation 
or redistribution whatsoever. 

Then what means have we for increasing wealth ? First 
of all, let us consider the three elements that go to the pro- 
duction of wealth : Capital, Labour, and Employer. In the 
first place, what is capital ? I have endeavoured to show 
that we cannot get rid of capital under any system whatsoever 
— that capital would exist under Socialism exactly as it does 
to-day. Mere abstract capital is owned by widows, by orphans, 
by minors who are living on the money left them by their 
parents ; by retired people who are living on the savings of 
their life, and by frugal people who have saved ; by co-oper- 
ators ; in short, by everybody who has saved money by 
spending less than their income. Those are the only abstract 
capitalists we have to-day. How did capital come into exist- 
ence ? Suppose we just imagine our earliest ancestors. 
They would be living on roots, on fruits, and on seeds that 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 317 

they gathered. They would have no cultivation ; they would 
also be living on the game the}' were able to trap or capture, 
or the fish they could catch. Let us suppose a community 
of one hundred of these ancestors of ours living in this way. 
Every member would have to gather in for himself or herself ; 
they would have to be constantly at work, just as the birds are, 
to feed themselves and their young. And now we will imagine 
that ten men and women of this hundred offer to make spades 
for the purpose of digging up the roots, another ten offer to 
make bows and arrows, and another ten offer to build boats 
to go fishing, and another ten offer to build huts for 
protection from the weather, on condition that in exchange 
for the providing of these implements of production by these 
forty people they should receive clothing, food, and shelter 
as consideration from the sixty who would be using the 
implements of production they were going to create. 

Now, the sixty remaining would find that with the aid of 
these implements of production they could obtain for the 
whole community of one hundred more food and clothing 
and better shelter, with less labour to themselves, than they 
could under the old conditions have provided for themselves 
alone. That is to say, that with the aid of these implements 
of production they were able to make enough for themselves 
and the other forty who created these implements, and that 
notwithstanding that they now produced for the whole 
community, they had more leisure and less exhaustion for 
themselves than when they worked without implements for 
themselves alone. And being better off under this system, 
they would adopt it permanently, and in future their com- 
munity would be conducted on these lines. This would then 
be the first introduction of capital — the implements of pro- 
duction — and some members of the tribe would permanently 
devote their lives to the creation of these implements of 
production, and receive their return in food, shelter, and 
clothing. Therefore, you see that capital and the implements 
of production must have had a very long history. And what 
do we find to-day ? We find that the production of wealth 
and its distribution is most general and most equal where 
capital is most plentiful. I want you to think of that — that 
the production of wealth and its even distribution is most 
general where capital is most plentiful. 



318 THE SIX-HOUR BAY 

In the United Kingdom the productive capital per head 
is two and a half times that of the Continent of Europe, and 
the income per head averages double. In the United Kingdom 
the capital per head is five times that of Italy, Spain, and 
Portugal, and the income per head is increased in proportion 
again. In England, capital is twelve times that of China 
and India, and the income per head is thirteen times that 
of China and India. In England, labour itself is only 4 per 
cent, of the productive power, and capital is 96 per cent. 
of the productive power as represented by machinery — that 
is, labour represents 4 per cent, of the productive power, 
and machinery — in other words, capital — represents 96 per 
cent. In Spain, labour is 24 per cent ; in Italy, labour 
is 34 per cent. ; and in Portugal, labour is 42 per cent. ; 
and consequently we find that the productive power of 
four Englishmen is equal to that of twenty-four 
Spaniards, thirty-four Italians, and forty-two Portuguese, 
and it is probably equal to sixty Chinamen and Hindoos, 
and that wages are proportionately higher in England. 
Therefore, this extra earning power, just as. in the case of our 
first forefathers, when it was provided by bow and arrow, 
has been provided by capital. When this fact is grasped, 
I venture to say that workmen will cease to rail against 
Capital, and will view Capital as the friend of Labour. 

The next element in the productive wealth is the employer ; 
and by the word " employer " I refer to the owner in private 
enterprises and to the Board of Directors in public companies, 
or whatever constitutes the supreme responsibility. As we 
have pointed out, at present the employer takes all the risks 
of the undertaking, guarantees labour its wages, capital 
its interest, and is willing to accept for himself the leavings. 
By adopting such a system we bring reward or loss into direct 
contact with the employer. If you turned a man under such 
conditions as these on to a bleak rock, you would have adopted 
the surest way of making it into a garden. The successful 
employer can only be a man working on piece-work. 

Now we come; to the consideration of the position of labour 
in the production of wealth. There are two classes of labour : 
there is labour engaged on productive work, and there is 
labour not engaged on productive work. I think it was Adam 
Smith who said that a man got rich in proportion to the 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 319 

number of servants he employed in productive work, and he 
got poor in proportion to the number of servants in his 
domestic employ. However, we do not need to go into the 
question of domestic servants, but I would like to point out 
two facts in connection with domestic servants. First, they 
are a wonderful force, working in the direction of the more 
even distribution of wealth. Second, although entirely un- 
organized, their wages have advanced at a greater rate than 
any other class of labour. 

Well, now, in considering labour and the position of 
labour, we come to this great fact — that a large production 
and a large consumption go together with high wages. You 
could not have low production and low consumption and high 
wages, but you can have large production and large consump- 
tion and high wages. Wages may be real or nominal. I will 
give you an illustration of wages that were only nominal. At 
the time of the outbreak of the rebellion in the United States 
under Washington, when our American Colonies made war 
against us, Washington had to issue paper money. He issued 
the first in March 1778, and then one dollar cash could be 
exchanged for $1.75 cf paper money. Twelve months after, 
one dollar cash would exchange for $19.00 paper money. 
Twelve months after that again one dollar cash would exchange 
for $40.00 of paper money, and three years later, in May 1781, 
one dollar cash would exchange for $500.00 paper money, 
and after that it got up to the point when one dollar cash 
would exchange for $1,000.00 of paper money. Now we find 
at that period there was a minister at Brookfield, Mass., 
named the Rev. W. Appleton. In 1776, before the war, his 
deacons had a meeting and voted the Rev. W. Appleton a 
salary of 400 dollars a year, paid in cash. In December 1778 
the deacons had to meet and voted the Rev. W. Appleton 
1,100 dollars more in paper, in addition to his 400 dollars 
which, no doubt, they were then paying him also in paper 
money. Twelve months after they had to give him 3,600 
more dollars in paper money, and in 1780, 12,000 dollars of 
paper money was required to keep the gentleman going. 
Therefore, in the last year he would receive 12,000 dollars in 
paper as the equal of 400 dollars in cash, but this was poor 
pay to the Rev. Mr. Appleton, because he would be enjoying 
fewer advantages on 40,000 dollars a year paid in paper in 



320 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

1780 than on 400 dollars paid in cash in 1776. We must 
distinguish between nominal wages and real wages, and the 
only way you can distinguish between them is the amount of 
social well-being and comforts that the wages will purchase. 
Those wages are most real that will purchase the largest 
amount of social well-being and comforts. Consequently, to 
improve the position of labour, you must increase the product 
of labour, make it more abundant and cheaper, and then 
you can also improve wages and also make them more real. 
Wages can only be paid out of the product of labour, and it 
is for this very reason that employers make their first and 
most serious mistake, because, knowing that wages are paid 
out of the product of labour, they consider that the lower 
the wages they pay the bigger the margin of profit that will 
be left to themselves. On the other hand, labour, knowing 
that wages are paid out of the product of labour, considers 
that restriction of output will tend to keep wages at a higher 
level. These are two most remarkable fallacies, because both 
employer and employee overlook the important fact of the 
power of increased consumption. Labour overlooks the ques- 
tion of the difference between real and nominal wages, and 
the manufacturer overlooks the enormous power of a large 
consumptive demand. Every increase of wages gives in- 
creased power of consumption to labour, and consequently a 
larger production for the manufacturer, with a cheaper cost 
of production and the possibility of increasing profits. A 
larger volume of production, by lowering prices, gives increased 
consumption of the products out of which labour is paid. 
This pressure is constantly operating in the direction of the 
raising of wages and the lowering of prices at the same time 
that it operates in the direction of making wages more real 
and less nominal. Therefore, all combines on the part of 
employers to raise prices and all strikes on the part of labour 
to raise wages defeat their own ends by lessening the con- 
sumption and by lessening the production. Don't let us 
forget, and don't let employers forget, that the profits of 
employers are merely the leavings of labour and capital — the 
greater the product and the greater the consumption of pro- 
ducts the greater the possibility of profits.' The increased 
power of consumption of the people and their ever-increasing 
wants are the basis of the employer's margin for profits. 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 321 

We now come to the consideration of another point : 
Supposing we had no increase in requirements, all wants 
being already fully satisfied, whether wages would increase. 
Happily we are none of us content to live to-day as our fore- 
fathers did. If we were, there would be no increase in 
consumption, and consequently no increase in production and 
no increase in wages. But, fortunately for all three partners 
in production, Labour, Capital, and Employer, the standard 
of living is rising even more rapidly than wages, and this 
fact brings us to the consideration of the next factor govern- 
ing the rate of wages, and that factor is that the standard 
of living determines the rate of wages. This factor partly 
explains why wages are higher in one country than in another, 
and also partly explains why wages of skilled labour are 
higher than the wages of unskilled labour ; but the standard 
of living, for it to be effective as a wage-raiser, must always 
be in advance of wages. As soon as wages get in advance of 
the standard of living, progress stops. The navvy with ideas 
of a higher standard of living aspires to become a ganger, or 
by increasing his power of production to obtain an advance 
in wages ; but the navv}^ with no desire for a higher standard 
of living remains content with his wages, and has no wish to 
raise his wages by increased efficiency. It is the same with 
the mechanic, and every other department of labour. There- 
fore it is as important to develop the desire of Labour to 
consume wealth as it is to produce wealth. 

Social progress is promoted just as much by consuming 
wealth as by saving wealth, and it is as true that the cost 
of production is governed by the standard of living as it is 
true that the standard of living depends upon the social 
character of the people. Now let us see how this is. The 
successful investment of capital in machinery is only possible 
in proportion to its power to cheapen production whilst 
raising wages, and so giving increased power of consumption 
to Labour. The higher the wages the higher will be the 
power of consumption, provided the social standard of living 
is also rising ; and consequently the higher the wages the 
better will be the return for capital, provided the use of capital 
can increase and cheapen production and can also increase the 
rate of wages, but not otherwise. Capital recognizes this 
fact, and flows into channels where it can effect the greatest 

22 



322 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

saving in the cost of production. If what we call "hand- 
made " goods can be produced the cheapest, quality and suit- 
ability considered, then it is clear " hand made " will be in 
the most demand ; but if what we call " machine made " 
goods, in other words, " capital and labour made ■' goods', 
can produce the cheapest, quality and suitability considered, 
then "machine made" will be in greatest demand. That 
which is able to undersell will always supplant that which is 
undersold. Consequently the increased use of capital and 
machinery is only possible on the basis of cheaper production 
and higher wages, because the higher wages are necessary to 
give the increase of consuming power. If wages do not rise 
with increased and cheaper production, there will be very 
little increased demand and little advantage to be gained by 
the use of machinery of greater producing powers. We see 
how these two elements act and react upon each other, and 
that rises in real wages depend upon increased production 
with decreased cost, and that the successful use of capital and 
the profits for the employer depend on rises in real wages to 
bring about this increased consumption which is possible 
only with decreased cost and increased wages. 

Now let us see if we can illustrate this statement. We will 
imagine a nation of Hottentots, Eskimos, or Zulus, with no 
capitalists and no employers, for the reason that their stan- 
dard of life, their social condition, was so low and their con- 
sumption of commodities was so small that all their require- 
ments could be supplied by hand labour. If machinery and 
capital were employed, this could serve no useful purpose, 
but would, from lack of increased demand, actually raise the 
price of production. Under these circumstances it is clear 
that production of commodities by hand labour would be 
cheaper for the limited requirements of Hottentot, Zulu, etc., 
than production of commodities by capital and machinery. 

All increase of wages to be permanent must be accompanied 
by cheaper production and by increased standard of living. 
Let us take the cotton industry, because it is the chief industry 
in Lancashire, and most of us know something about it. 
At the beginning of the last century the capital employed 
in the cotton industry is estimated to have been £130 per 
operative, and the production 936 lb. per operative, or 7 lb. 
per sovereign of capital employed. By the middle of last 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 323 

century we find that capital had increased to £240 per 
operative, and the production had increased to 3,519 lb. per 
operative, or 15 lb. per sovereign of capital employed. 
To-day it is estimated that the capital per operative is £500, 
and the production has correspondingly increased. To rind 
how this has affected wages in Lancashire, let us compare 
the wages of cotton operatives a hundred years ago, fifty 
years ago, and to-day, ever increasing, ever getting more real, 
and better able to purchase more social well-being and comforts. 

I will now endeavour to illustrate how increased production 
and increased wages cheapen production. 

We will take the manufacture of watches for our illustra- 
tion, owing to the important part that machinery plays in 
the production of watches. Imagine four employers manu- 
facturing watches, whom we will call No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, 
and No. 4, and suppose that No. 1, with inferior plant and 
old premises, can barely make watches to cost 10s. each, 
No. 2, with a little better plant, can make watches for 9s., 
No. 3, with better plant still, can make watches for 8s., and 
No. 4, with up-to-date modern plant and machinery, can make 
watches for 7s. Now it is clear that No. 1 must sell at 10s. 
or else become bankrupt, but if No. 1 is able to sell at ios., 
it could only be for so long as Nos. 2, 3, and 4 also sell at 
ios. And this they would continue to do provided they had 
nothing to gain by adopting a different policy. Now suppose 
that No. 4 saw that by selling at 9s. he could make more net 
profit for himself, having knocked No. 1 out and so increased 
his own production, than by continuing to sell at ios. If he 
adopted this course he would then find that his watches cost 
him less by reason of increased production, and that instead 
of costing 7s. as formerly, they now cost him only 6s. He 
would probably next boldly lower his price to 7s. 6d. and 
would find his total profits greater than when selling at 9s., 
because of his increased production which brought down his 
cost to only 5s. per watch. No. 4 would also find that as 
his cost of production per watch came down he was able to 
increase the weekly wages of his men far beyond what Nos. 1, 
2, and 3 could do, and so he would secure a better class of 
workmen, and his workmen would find that as they got better 
and more regular employment, with higher wages, they were 
in consequence larger consumers of watches and all other 



324 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

articles than they had ever been under the old conditions. 
The trade of No. 4 would be helped in every way and his 
success would be certain. 

How does this reduction in the cost of watches come about ? 
I will endeavour to give you what would be called a pro forma 
balance-sheet. We will assume the prices of raw materials 
were fixed. We can assume that, because they would be 
affected only by the world's supply governing each of the 
four watch factories. We will suppose each of the four fac- 
tories produces 52,000 watches a year, 1,000 a week each, 
and that the cost of the up-to-date plant of No. 4 was £50,000. 
Now, the raw material for the watch would probably cost 
about is. We will say No. 4 employs 200 workpeople at an 
average of 20s. per week for men, women, and boys. This 
would be 4s. per watch for labour. The interest and depre- 
ciation would come, you will see, to 2s. per watch, making 
a total of 7s. as the cost of the watch. Ey selling watches at 
10s. each he would make a gross profit of £7,800, out of which 
he would have to pay selling expenses and provide a margin 
of net profit for himself. After No. 1 had gone, his production, 
we will say, would be about 104,000 watches, and he would 
have cost of increase of plant, £20,000, making total cost of 
plart now £70,000. His raw material would again cost him 
is., and he would probably require not 200 additional work- 
people, but 100, making a total of, say, 300 workpeople, and 
would pay them, say, an average of 24s., instead of 20s. as 
formerly, making labour now 3s. 7d. per watch. The interest 
and depreciation would be is. 5d., making the total cost of 
the watch 6s. Selling the watches at 9s. each, there would 
be a gross profit of £15,600 to provide for selling expenses 
and for his own net profit. After Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were 
gone, his production would be 208,000 watches, and the cost 
of plant would probably be increased a further £30,000, 
making a total of £100,000 for plant, raw materials again 
costing is. He would probably now have 400 workpeople, 
whom he would pay now at the average rate of 30s., which 
would make labour now cost 3s. per watch, and interest 
and depreciation is., amounting to a total cost of 5s. per 
watch, and by selling at 7s. 6d. he would make £26,000 of 
gross profit out of which to pay selling expenses and leave a 
margin of net profit for himself. 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 325 

Now what becomes of the 400 workpeople thrown out of 
employment ? We saw that the total amount paid to the 
workpeople under the old conditions, men, women, and boys, 
was £800 per week ; the total paid under the new conditions 
for 400 workpeople was £600 per week. The 400 workpeople 
formerly engaged in making watches are now liberated, and 
as the 400 workpeople who are left in the business have £200 
a week more to spend than formerly, they have increased the 
demand for clothing, houses, and for all the things that make 
for social well-being and comforts ; consequently the 400 
workpeople who left watchmaking find occupation in supplying 
this increased demand for commodities from the 400 work- 
people who were left in the watch business and for others, 
because these rises in wages of watchmakers affected not only 
the watchmakers, but also tended to raise the wages of the 
400 workpeople who went out of watchmaking and of all 
other workpeople. That is the case so long as our social 
well-being is continuously improving, but no longer. 

Now all these things are very gradual. No sudden dis- 
location occurs, for the selling price of a commodity is always 
nearer to the dearest cost of production than it is to the 
cheapest cost of production. The balance between the dearest 
cost of production and the cheapest cost of production repre- 
sents the margin of profit available for the capable employer, 
and for increasing wages. Therefore, instead of all losing 
money and having to reduce wages except the one fortunate 
employer who can produce the cheapest, all make money 
and are able to raise wages except the employer who manu- 
factures the dearest. These industrial movements are like 
the Yeomanry regiment : they move at the speed of the 
slowest horse, and not the fastest. 

The next point for us to consider is that in addition to the 
standard of living the social opportunities of Labour affect 
profits and wages. We have seen that we can only increase 
profits and wages by increased production, that we can only 
increase production by increasing consumption, that we can 
only increase consumption by raising wages and the standard 
of living. Now, we will try to prove that we cannot improve 
the standard of living without as a first step increasing the 
social opportunities of life, and that this latter can only be 
done by reducing the hours of labour. Two conditions have 



326 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

to be observed in reducing the hours of labour. The first 
essential is that it shall be general, for you could not have 
one section working one set of hours in an industry and another 
section working another set of hours. The second essential 
is that it must be gradual. Well, now, we must look into 
history to see what the effect of reducing the hours of labour 
has been. In 1800, you will hardly believe it, the hours of 
labour of adults in this country were fourteen to sixteen hours 
a day, and children commenced to work at the age of six 
years and worked for twelve hours a day. The hours for 
adult labour and children were gradually reduced, and the age 
limit for children was gradually raised until you have the 
present scale, which is as well known to yourselves as to me. 
It varies from nine and a half hours to eight hours a day for 
adults, and we have an age-limit of twelve or thirteen years 
for children. As each Act came into operation the benefit 
was so marked that the efforts of friends were strengthened 
and the position of opponents was weakened. In 1847 Lord 
Ashley, better known as Lord Shaftesbury, proved that wages 
had not fallen, but had risen ; that profits had not fallen, but 
risen ; production had not diminished, but increased ; that 
the general prosperity of the whole country had not suifered 
but had been benefited by each reduction of working hours. 
And now to-day, fifty years later, we can state that all these 
assertions have been still further proved to be correct, and 
with even more astonishing results. The reason for this is 
that increased time for social advancement has improved 
the standard of living, that increased leisure has raised the 
tastes and habits and intelligence of Labour. Shortening the 
hours of labour, therefore, has brought about a natural rise 
in real wages for labour, and, consequently, more opportuni- 
ties for profitable employment of capital and larger profits 
for employers. At the same time, it must not be overlooked 
that shorter hours do require intensified labour in the hours 
devoted to labour, but that need not and must not result 
in greater exhaustion, but rather in less exhaustion for 
labour. 

Our factory system is not perfect, but it does give more 
equal opportunities to skilled and unskilled ' labour, to the 
strong and to the weakly, than we have had under any other 
system. Every automatic machine we possess is simply a 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 327 

storage battery for the brains of the inventor, enabling a less 
gifted intellect to intensify production without intensifying 
exhaustion. Let me now give you an illustration to show 
this. The whole quantity of yarn produced by hand labour 
in Lancashire two hundred years ago is estimated not to have 
exceeded the quantity that 50,000 spindles of our present 
machinery can produce. One man and two boys can super- 
intend 2,000 spindles, and therefore twenty-five men and 
fifty boys with modern machinery can produce by intensified 
production, but with less exhaustion of the individual, as 
much product as all the- cotton operatives, men, women, 
and children, of Lancashire, working for fourteen to sixteen 
hours a day, with excessive exhaustion, could produce two 
hundred years ago. 

Our engine power in England to-day is estimated to repre- 
sent a greater power of production than 120,000,000 of adult 
workmen, working day and night without rest or sleep, could 
produce by hand labour with the implements of production 
of one hundred years ago. And yet the product is all too 
small for our wants. Whatever poverty we have to-day is 
due to the fact that the commodities produced are not sufficient 
to satisfy the requirements of the people. We have a more 
even distribution of social well-being and comforts, and less 
poverty to-day than we had one hundred years ago, simply 
because production is greater, and when production is sufficient 
to satisfy requirements, nothing except bad laws can prevent 
an equitable distribution. We have seen the enormous advan- 
tages brought to Labour, Capital, and the Employer working 
along natural courses. Socialism could not have secured this, 
because the wealth of any one class, as we have endeavoured 
to prove, cannot be increased by lessening that of any other 
class. Nor could we secure this by means of any method of 
redistribution whatsoever. W T e can only increase social well- 
being and comforts, and secure a more even distribution of 
them, by increasing the total wealth produced. We can 
only increase the total wealth produced by intensified produc- 
tion and increasing the wages of labour, and consequently 
Labour's power of consumption. This we can in turn secure 
through elevating the standard of living by enlarging social 
opportunities made possible by a general and gradual reduction 
of the hours of labour — brought about by means of intensified 



328 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

production, but which must not be accompanied by increased 
exhaustion. 

By these methods only can we succeed, for the natural 
order of social progress must always be from the material to 
the intellectual, moral, and social, and the progress of every 
nation must depend mainly on increasing the opportunities 
for improving the material condition and social well-being 
of its people. 



VI 

SOCIALISM, OR EQUALITY AND 
EQUITY 

[From " Bibby's Annual/' 191S] 

One of the most clearly defined of our human aspirations 
is a desire for Equality. It is upon this yearning of humanity 
for Equality that the Socialist, the Anarchist, and the Bol- 
shevist found their hopes for the realization of their ideals 
as to the re-organization of Society. 

But they are following a mirage of the desert — a will-o'- 
the-wisp — that can only lead them into a waterless, barren 
land, where hunger and famine are the constant accompani- 
ment of life, or into a quaking bog where mankind would 
sink into slime and ooze and death. 

For let it be noted that this yearning for Equality is never 
coupled with any basis of Equity. It is a desire for an 
equality that would divide the wealth of others amongst 
those who consider that such division would bring gain- — 
not loss — to themselves. 

The Trades Unionist, Artisan, or Socialist desires to share 
with his employer, but will not agree that his labourer should 
share with himself, nor even receive the same rate of wages 
as himself. His interpretation of Equality is that he should 
say to his employer, " I am equal with you," but not that 
he should also say in Equity to his labourer, " You are equal 
with me." When the Socialist wears khaki he has to accept 
the gradations of rank and pay that follow from Private 
to Corporal, from Sergeant to Lieutenant, from Captain to 
Colonel, and so on up to Field-Marshal, but in industries the 
Socialist claims equality with all above him, whilst denying 
equality to all others beneath him. We all wear khaki through - 

359 



^^a_^___ 



330 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

out our lives, invisible to all eyes but our own, but our own 
conscience sees our uniform, and we appoint ourselves to our 
own rank, and no man chooses for us. 

The basis of all social conditions and advancement is the 
law of service to others, and in this only can we realize 
Equality and Equity with both the man above and the man 
below us. The earliest manifestation of selection amongst 
most primitive men was that they chose as their King and 
Ruler the man most distinguished by prowess in defending 
them from their enemies, and right down to the present day 
Kings are looked up to to serve their peoples. When Kings 
cease to make service to their peoples their title to Kingship, 
and demand instead service from their peoples, that moment 
Kings have themselves signed their own abdication. Neither 
King nor Priest, nor politician, nor people, nor capitalist, 
nor employer, nor employee-worker who has ceased to serve 
can survive, and no Socialist " cure-all " can produce equality 
in value or fruits of service until our Creator sends us into 
this world all equal in health, strength, energy and ability. 
There will always be gradation of rank of service from King 
to peasant, from Field-Marshal to Private, from Admiral to 
Jack Tar. Equally by service and by service alone in Busi- 
ness, Science, or Art come gradations in rank and advance- 
ment. 

Gigantic combinations, whether called Trade Unions or 
Trusts, or Labour or Capital, which are solely concerned 
with their own selfish, narrow aims and ideals cannot succeed 
or continue any more than a one- winged bird can fly. Their 
continuance depends on their fulfilling the eternal law of 
service. That great truth is as immutable as the law of 
gravitation, and service means, to work for and to serve 
others. It does not mean " ca' canny " by a " Trade Union- 
ist," or slackness and competition dodging by the Employer- 
Combine ; nor does service for others mean overstrain or 
work beyond limits of continuance in frenzied competition 
with fellow-man — that is War, not Service. The Employer- 
Capitalist or Employer- Worker, or Socialist, or Anarchist, 
who thinks only of Equality and ignores the Equity of ser- 
vice, will stand no chance of survival under modern social 
conditions of life. Life is a game that must be played with 
scrupulous fairness. The outstanding law of life is service 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 331 

to others and just and equal rights and liberties for all. 
Life will not surrender a bishop for a knight, nor a queen 
for a rook. However alert we may be we shall never catch 
Equity napping in that way. 

Either by ourselves directly, or by our fathers or fore- 
fathers, the corresponding service must have been rendered. 
We can inherit good health or ill-health, strength or weak- 
ness, strong mentality or feeble-mindedness, energy or slack- 
ness, application or inertia, with their corresponding rewards 
or punishments '■' to the third or fourth generation of those 
that serve." No typewriter or calculating machine more 
correctly records the key we ourselves or our ancestors have 
struck than does Life record our service, be it high or low, 
noble or mean. Equity is depicted as silent but scrupulously 
just and pitiless. Nature or Equity — call it what we will — 
knows no pity. The game of life is difficult and our antagonist 
Equity is wary and adept, but victory always rests with the 
man whose life conforms most successfully to the rules of 
service. Equity or Nature is always more than willing to 
be checkmated by the man of boldness who brings courage 
and efficiency and noble service to the game. And equally 
true it is that Equity will exact the fullest price for every 
false move and for every error and blunder of ourselves or 
of our forefathers. Nature or Equity — call it what we will — 
— is absolutely infallible. Judas thought to sell his Lord for 
thirty pieces of silver and make a profit on the deal. But 
he only sold himself and brought about his own suicide. Cain 
sought his own happiness by killing Abel, but he only achieved 
his own misery and undoing. And these truths are written 
large through all the pages of History. All down the echoing 
vaults of time there comes only one recorded note as the 
basis of success, and that note is — service to others. 

It is quite out of the power of any one of us to escape from 
our ego any more than we can escape from our own shadow 
in an open field on a sunny day. Our ego is the central 
force of our very life and being, and consequently we are 
all by nature Individualists and not Socialists. We are all 
egoists just as surety as snow is white and coal is black. All 
snow is not alike in whiteness, but all snow is white. All 
coal is not alike in blackness, but all coal is black. And so 
we may each of us differ individually, but we are all egoists — 



332 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

we cannot avoid being so if we would and we would not if 
we could. But rich or poor, high-born or low-bred, saint 
or sinner, peer or peasant, philosopher or fool, wolfish or 
lamb-like, bold or timid, courageous or cowardly, we are all 
egoists. ' 

Even whole nations are egoists. The Germanic nation are 
egoists in their ideals of " Mittel P^urope " and world domina- 
tion. Great Britain, France, Italy, United States and their 
Allies are egoists in opposing this Germanic ideal. All our 
best Heroes, Statesmen and Citizens have been egoists, and 
believing in themselves have worked for human happiness, 
have saved mankind from disaster, or have deluged the world 
with blood, suffering, hardships and misery according to 
their ideals and ideals of their ego. Lincoln, Washington, 
Cromwell, Pitt, Wellington, Nelson, Napoleon, Caesar, and 
Alexander were all egoists of different ideas and ideals. An 
ignoble idea of self, a weak, feeble egoism is the root of all 
evil more surely than any other cause. 

As is the compensating balance to the watch, or the safety 
valve to the boiler, so is the power of self-criticism and self- 
valuation to our ego. The power of self-criticism must be 
as true and exact as a beam scale with just balances founded 
on accurate self-knowledge. It is when our ego is self -judged 
by the power of self-criticism that it leads us to power and 
dominance over all the forces which oppose our aims and 
ideals. We can only fulfil our full and useful service when 
we have impartially subjected our ego to the searchlight of 
self-criticism. 

The unique attribute of the successful man, who does 
accomplish results as compared with the mere dreamer, is 
this power of self-criticism. The great power of an ideal 
is not so much in the ideal but in the balanced egoism of 
the idealist. If he be a true egoist then he possesses the 
inward strength to realize his ideal. Without this inward 
force of the egoist the ideal will never progress beyond a 
dream. 

The world owes its position and advancement to-day not 
to self-distrust and self-effacement, but to the self-centred 
individualists, well-balanced egoists who, with confidence in 
themselves and faith in their ideals, have dared and done 
all for their realization and achievement. It has been said 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 333 

that the British are a nation of shopkeepers ; that the Ameri- 
cans are thinking only of the dollars ; and Bismarck had 
a saying that Germany was a nation of servants. Her soldiers 
are drilled units of humanity. Her workmen are dragooned 
into service, but they are consequently, as rank and file, 
not equal in ego to the rank and file of other races. They 
lack the ego of individualism and its power of initiative. 

We are egoists because we are human. We serve with 
our ego the happiness of others because we are Divine as 
well as human. It is the Divine in us that triumphs always 
and ever ; it is the base in our ego that lowers and destroys 
us. But through it all our ego is to each of us what the sun 
is to Nature, and we can no more triumph without our ego 
than Nature can produce food and flowers without the central 
radiance and power of the sun. 

But whatever we call ourselves — Individualist, Socialist 
or Anarchist — we cannot escape by adoption of any name or 
badge the obligation laid upon us of service for others. That 
must be our highest ideal and the goal to which we travel 
in our national and personal aims and ambitions. And let 
us consider the joy of ideals founded on service to others. 
First, there is the joy of the ideal itself, the inspiration. Then 
our inspiration to achieve that ideal. Then the joy of tireless 
and ceaseless application to overcome all obstacles and diffi- 
culties, and, lastly, the final joy of realization. 

But we so often fix our attention too much on the goa* 
of our ideals rather than on the best methods to adopt to 
make sure of reaching that goal. The point is not how high 
we can climb or how far we can travel each day, or year, or 
life-time, to reach our goal, but to see that our methods are 
true and right for ourselves and posterity. If we are to 
concentrate solely on our ideals and not equally concentrate 
on methods that will stand the test of all conditions of time, 
then we are no more likely to reach the summit than would 
be an Alpine Climber who, with eyes fixed on mountain peaks, 
ignored the ravines, precipices, rivers and glaciers he had 
to traverse and overcome. 

The Socialist would look to attain a higher state of civili- 
zation by the giving of all power to Governments. The 
Anarchist would hope to attain the same ends by the denial 
of any power to Governments. There have always been 



334 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

two types of Government — one nearest to Socialistic ideals, 
and the other nearest to Individualistic ideals, but there is 
no record of social life in communities without Governments. 
From the days of ancient Egypt and ancient Rome there 
have been Governments that pauperized the people ; that 
gave doles for a cheap loaf ; doles for house-building that 
the workman might pay less for his bread and less rent for 
his house than he had received for his labour as the cost of 
their production. This type of Government is considered 
by Socialists to be the protector and guardian of the people, 
and is said to live and exist for the people. The other type 
of Government gives no doles for cheap bread or cheap 
houses. It believes that the individual should be a freeman 
and self-supporting. It concentrates on Justice and Equity 
and equal rights for all ; favouritism or pauperizing for none. 
This Government is proud of its reputation that its policy is 
to encourage the people to live for themselves. 

Every act of the Socialistic Government makes each man's 
penny — the penny of those who receive Government doles 
equally with the penny of all others — worth less than one 
penny. Every act of the Individualistic Government makes 
each man's penny worth more than one penny in the comfort, 
health and happiness it places within his reach. 

Reward must be linked to effort, and without effort there 
can be no reward. It is only when we play the game of 
life, not on the basis of asking and looking for doles and 
grants from Governments, not on the basis of " ca' canny " 
or cunning, but on the basis of whole-hearted service for 
others, that we can reach the sublime heights for ourselves, 
and make it the easier for all others to reach there and to 
attain to a full and complete life of happiness. 

Who can set a limit on the influence of a human being 
for good or ill ? But we are poor and feeble whatever may 
be our wealth or health, if we lack the leisure to satisfy 
healthy wants of mind and soul as well as of muscle and 
body. Material, individual and national progress is in- 
separably interlocked with the progress and development of 
men, women and children as individuals. We have seen in 
Russia the collapse of hopes for betterment' founded on the 
fallacies of Socialistic theories. We are a democratic nation 
living under the finest and most sane and stable form of 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 335 

Government the world has ever known — a Constitutional 
Monarchy — and it would be nothing less than a scandal if 
we, a democratic nation and empire, could organize suc- 
cessfully for War at short notice, as we have done, and could 
not equally successfully and rapidly organize for Peace. 

There is a saying amongst sailors that if the wind were 
always south-west by west then children might take ships 
to sea. But we British with our brave Allies have for over 
four long years on individualistic, democratic principles suc- 
cessfully weathered the tornado hurricane of this present 
World War, and surely we can successfully navigate in the 
calmer winds of Peace. Our only ally that has dropped out 
has been the Ally misled by Socialistic fallacies, but that 
Ally will, let us all hope, yet turn from these fallacies and, 
rejoining her friends, achieve liberty and freedom. 

Our greatest hindrance for betterment reconstruction after 
the War will be that we always find it difficult to shake our- 
selves clear of prejudice and preference for former habits 
and lines of thought. The inertia of former habits of thought 
and habits of action is difficult to overcome, and inertia 
makes cowards of us all. But science was making rapid 
progress, and moving with accelerated speed during the 
War, and will move with still more rapid strides immediately 
Peace follows on W^ar. 

It is true that as marked by figures on a Calendar there 
is a greater interval of time from the days of Adam to the 
days of Sir Isaac Newton than from the days of Sir Isaac 
Newton to to-day. But as marked by the progress of science, 
civilization and of the unlocking of the secrets of Nature 
by man, and his acquisition of correct knowledge of the 
universe and of the infinite power of such natural forces as 
electricity, there has been a greater span and interval from 
the days of Sir Isaac Newton to the present time than in all 
the preceding centuries since the foundations of this world 
were laid. 

It is Science, and the wealth of Capital and mechanical 
utilities made possible by Science, that have raised mankind 
from a race of cave-dwellers clothed in skins of beasts into 
house-dwellers clothed in scarlet and fine linen. And yet it 
is these very modern conditions of life that have given us 
power for increased production, accompanied by lessened 



336 THE SIX-HOUR DAT 

exertion, that are viewed as powers that can be made to 
produce greater well-being if they are accompanied by a policy 
of " ca' canny." The workman fears the mechanical utility, 
believing it reduces employment, and is obsessed with the 
fallacy that Capital and the Capitalist, which have made 
Science and machinery possible, are the sworn enemies of 
the workers, whilst a closer examination of these operations 
would prove that both are the best friends the workers and 
mankind have ever enjoyed for the service of man. But 
to the ignorant or partially informed the truths of know- 
ledge and facts of history do not exist any more than if they 
were not. The present-day attitude of Trades Unionists to 
labour-saving machinery is just as logical as if our cave- 
dwelling ancestors had decided that the first inventors of 
bows and arrows, canoes and fishing nets or clubs and spears 
for the men who hunted, fished or fought, were likely to bring 
about periods of distress through over-production by giving 
increased facilities for securing more game and fish, and 
better defence from attack, involving social danger that 
might bring ruin in its train if not " cabined, cribbed, and 
confined " by " ca' canny " methods. 

We are told that the cave-dweller had a shallow, receding 
skull fashioned like an inverted saucer and which skull held 
little more than a spoonful of brains. He did not worry 
about Socialism or any other " ism " ; and let us thank 
God that he had brains enough to see that the inventor who 
invented for him the mechanical utility, crude as it was, of 
a bow and arrow that enabled him to kill the fleeing deer 
without the necessity of running himself off his legs on foot 
chasing after the deer, or who invented the mechanical utility 
of the canoe and nets which enabled him to catch more fish 
in an hour than he could take in a month without them, 
or who invented the club and spear that enabled him the 
better to defend his wife and children from attacks of enemies, 
and so live in greater security and comfort, could not possibly 
be other than his friend ; and that every mechanical utility 
that enabled him to produce more food and clothing with 
less exertion, and in greater safety for his wife, children 
and himself, was something to be sought after and to be 
employed without hesitation or doubt as to future ill effects. 
The greatest of our utilities to-day for the production of 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 337 

more food and clothing, with greater safety and comfort 
for our wives, our children and ourselves, is Capital ; for 
Capital is the result of the developed heart and mind of man 
which has enabled him to produce more than he consumes. 
Hence we get stored-up Capital. Capital to-day is man- 
kind's best friend, which with magic wand, harnesses the 
waste forces of Nature into the service of mankind, making 
the desert places and wildernesses of the earth to blossom 
and bring forth food and clothing and to provide comforts 
for our sheltering homes. And yet Capital and the so-called 
Capitalist system is the most abused, the most misunder- 
stood and probably the best hated of our institutions. With- 
out Capital and the Capitalist there could be no machinery, 
no mechanical utilities, or opening up and development of 
our Colonies or of the distant waste lands from the frozen 
North or South poles through the torrid tropics and temperate 
zones. Unless some one had rendered service to others by 
self-denial, in order to save up Capital with which to purchase 
machinery and mechanical utilities, our feeble physical 
strength could not produce one-hundredth part of the food, 
clothing, shelter and bare necessities of life required to main- 
tain our highly civilized modern life at one tithe of its present 
level of comfort, health and happiness. 

Capital, machinery and mechanical utilities, plough, sow, 
cultivate and harvest our fields ; milk our cows and prepare 
our food ready for consumption ; spin, weave and make 
our clothing ; dress our leather and make our boots and 
shoes ; make our furniture and carpets, and erect our houses, 
build our ships, locomotives and engines ; and by electricity 
can light and heat our homes, cook our food, clean our knives 
and our boots. A vacuum cleaner will sweep our floors, 
carpets and curtains. Machines typewrite our letters, add, 
subtract and multiply our calculations for us, set up the type 
for and print off our newspapers, and, in fact, perform for 
us, without entailing strain or overwork on ourselves, thou- 
sands of services too numerous to describe, which, without 
the aid of Capital, machinery and mechanical utilities we 
could never by our own feeble strength accomplish. 

Capital, machinery and mechanical utilities bear our 
heaviest burdens for us and prevent our own backs from 
being broken under the heavy load we would otherwise have 

23 



338 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

to bear, or be forced to return to the misery and discomfort 
of the life of our ancestors, the cave-dwellers. If Capital, 
machinery and mechanical production were withdrawn from 
the world to-morrow, or their service to mankind curtailed, 
or hindered, or arrested, this would cause millions of our 
fellow creatures to perish, and force the remainder to exist 
in abject misery and wretchedness. In awe and wonder we 
exclaim this is a machine age, and that it is all too wonderful 
for us to understand or realize, or adequately appreciate. 

But the modern street-corner orators and Socialists, and 
large masses of employee- workers, and ill-informed Trades 
Unionists attack what they are constantly denouncing as 
the " Capitalist system," and they speak of " Wage Slavery," 
" Capital," " Machinery " as the cause of each and every 
ill that a distorted imagination can depict. Even religion 
and Christianity are described as part of the Capitalist system 
of " Wage Slavery." If our Christian religion and its Founder 
teach us that our own well-being and happiness are abso- 
lutely dependent for realization on the extent of our own 
services and the services of our fathers and forefathers to 
our fellow-man, and that service to our fellow-man is a duty 
we can never disregard without bringing suffering also on 
ourselves, then revolutionary orators declare that religion is a 
device of the so-called " Capitalist system " for the enslave- 
ment of mankind, and is " fundamentally " wrong, and one 
that must be abolished by the " proletariat " as the enemy 
of the people. Talk to the man who would carry the " Red 
Flag " through the land, talk to the Socialist or Anarchist of in- 
creasing production, or of volume of output and its relation 
to the costs of production, and you receive a. vacant stare from 
out their bloodshot eyes and a scornful reference to " Capital- 
ism " and " Wage Slavery." They hold all increases in pro- 
duction as solely the exploitation of the workers, and they 
view machinery and mechanical production as part of a 
" Capitalist System " and *' Wage Slavery " to be met and 
defeated only by Trades Unionist secret rules for limiting 
output by " ca' canny " methods. Abolish the " Capitalist 
System," abolish " Payment of Interest," abolish the " Wage 
System," confiscate all wealth, let all the industries of the 
country be run by Committees of Workmen without Capital- 
ist heads to guide, direct and control, and they declare we 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 339 

shall then have discovered the secret of " Perpetual Motion " 
in our industries, the " Philosopher's Stone " of Government, 
the " Elixir of Life " for social well-being, and the " Trans- 
mutation " of baser metals into gold for every employee- 
worker, and finally that but for the so-called " Capitalist 
System " and so-called " Wage Slavery " mankind would 
bask in the perpetual sunshine of satisfied wants and realized 
ideals without any corresponding labour. 

This mental outlook of the Socialist and Anarchist has 
been cartooned by a satirist in a French journal, who depicted 
some Bolshevik workman reading a poster put out by the 
Bolshevik Russian Government, which reads, " Our soldiers 
and citizens are without bread and all other necessaries. 
Let every citizen do his duty and work " — the Bolshevik 
workman's comment being, " Work ! ! Our Government has 
betrayed us. The Capitalists have triumphed." 

But " if a man will not work, neither shall he eat " must 
always be the law of the universe, and instead of Capital, 
machinery and mechanical utilities being the foes of the 
worker, making his laborious task the harder, they are just 
as much his friends and more surely improvers of his con- 
dition, and are even more necessary to his civilized existence 
than were the first club, spear, bow and arrow, canoe and 
net invented for the use of our cave-dwelling ancestors. 

Who and what are the Capitalists ? Every man or woman 
with good health, good character, common sense, who exer- 
cises self-denial and practises the essential law of service to 
others, can become a Capitalist. 

Capital and wealth or health are the results that Equity 
records in the game called Life, when we strike the keyboard 
letters and figures with habits of industry, economy, attention 
to duty, service to mankind, and hard concentrated work. 
Every man or woman lacking in these qualities will become 
bankrupt in Capital, wealth or health, even if he or she 
inherited the same from father or remoter ancestors, who had 
possessed and had practised them. Nor can Capital, wealth 
and health be fraudulently acquired and retained. Poverty 
and ill-healthcare the record of Equity in the game called 
Life when the keyboard letters and figures of fraud or of 
idleness, extravagance, slackness, selfishness in regard to 
others have been struck by ourselves or our fathers. But 



340 THE SIX-HOUR DAY 

when we see Capital, wealth or health, poverty or ill-health, 
we view them as causes not as effects. It would be as reason- 
able to view the rosy flush of health or the pustules of smallpox 
as the casue of health or disease. But with these manifesta- 
tions we do not fall into any such error. We know they 
are not causes, and we recognize them as effects, and as the 
outward and visible sign of good health or ill-health. 

It would be just as logical and productive of service to 
mankind to declaim against health and strength as it is to 
declaim against Capital and Wealth. The more we desire 
to produce conditions that result in rosy cheeks of health 
and strength, the more we find ourselves dependent on the 
conditions that equally are necessary for the production of 
Capital and Wealth. Do we wish mankind to become each 
succeeding year the possessor of more Capital and of more 
Wealth, Health and Strength, then we must make easier the 
practice of the qualities that lead to the acquisition of either 
and both. We must do nothing to discourage the acquisition 
of Capital and Wealth, any more than we should discourage 
the acquisition of health and strength ; otherwise we shall 
bring suffering and distress on the whole human race — on 
ourselves equally with all others. 

If we could bring greater prosperity and happiness on 
mankind by preventing the fertile valley from yielding a 
more plentiful and a richer harvest as compared with less 
fertile soils, or by preventing the cow that was a good milker, 
the hen that was a good layer, from producing more than 
the poor milker or poor layers, we might then achieve pros- 
perity and happiness by preventing or discouraging the man 
or woman of exceptional powers for the acquisition and the 
production of Capital, Wealth or Health, from producing 
more than was produced by those of feeble powers for the 
acquisition of either. Any attempt at limiting the powers 
of the individual to acquire wealth is like endeavouring to 
lower some one's standard of health because it is higher than 
the average. The healthy of a community are a source of 
strength to all others, and so are the wealthy. What we 
require to do is not to weaken the strong or impoverish the 
wealthy, but to show to the weak and the poor the way to 
become healthy and wealthy. 

Our hope for the future is a deeper and wider knowledge 



SOME INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 341 

and a broader outlook, a frank discussion without prejudice 
or temper. We are, in our industrial and economic con- 
ditions, merely like a healthy, strong child that has grown 
faster than it could be provided with new clothes. No blame 
attaches to Capital for this, and no blame attaches to Labour ; 
both have become entangled in the strong currents bearing 
along the drift weeds of previous growths. The strong and 
wealthy are as helpful and generous as the sickly and poor 
would be if they were to change places. Men work and are 
saving and frugal, not only for themselves, but for their wives 
and children. If we abolished distinctions between men 
there would still be the strong and the weak, the healthy 
and the ailing, and consequently the rich and the poor. The 
healthy and strong of to-day may be the sickly and weak of 
to-morrow, and the wealthy of to-day may become the poor 
of to-morrow, and the children of the poor of yesterday will 
then take their places. The brightest hope for the future 
is our ever-increasing healthy wants and ever-increasing 
desire to live and enable our children to live in greater happi- 
ness and comfort. The old wages will not supply the new 
wants, and science and the better organization of our indus- 
tries enable us by increasing production to reduce the hours 
of toil, increase the wages, and cheapen the product. 

On these lines our future happiness lies, and not on dreams 
of an impossible Socialism. Already we see the coming of 
a new day, and are warmed by the glorious rays of its rising 
sun. 



INDEX 



Accidents,precautions against, 187-91 
" All Electric " scheme, the, 28 
America — 
production in, n, 23, 27-8, 45-6, 

257 

machinery and wages in, 277 
inequality of wealth in, 294-5 

Birkenhead, prosperity of, 167-8 
Book-learning and education, 225-7, 

288 
Borrowing, 297 
Business and the human factor, 66, 

88, 92, 113-15, 134 

"Ca* canny" policy, the, 1, 6, 14, 

18, 48, 53, 66, 205, 255, 283 
Capital — 

distrust of, 14 

antagonism with Labour, 53, 55, 

114 
relation to wages, 65, 10 1-2 
dependent on Management and 

Labour, 77 
its obligations, 91 
relations to Labour, 113-20, 266-7, 

286 
and Henry Ford, 279-82 
a pillar of national prosperity, 291, 

295. 297-8 
and nationalization, 3 10- 11 
its origin, 316-17 
international statistics, 318 
Capitalists, attack on, 338 
Certificates, Lord Leverhulme's 

scheme of, 80-3 
Cheapness, 264 
Class antagonism, 293-4 
Coats' thread, 262 
Co-education, 231-2 
Combines, 260-5, 288 



Comfort of employees, 5 
Competition, 219, 263-5 
Conscription of wealth, 152, 202-3, 
264, 281-3, 290-1, 296, 298-9, 

313-15 
Control, 69, 96 

Co-Partnership, 54, 59-122, 303-6 
its basis, 91, 95-6, 99, 102 
defined by Board of Trade Report, 

92 
in the fishing industry, 103 
at Lever Brothers Limited, 135-7 
Cottage industries, 263 
Cotton industry statistics, 266, 322-3 
Crompton's and Arkwright's spin- 
ning-looms, 266, 292 



Day-work v. Piece-work, 309 
Death duties, 299 
Demand, 275-7, 320 
Democracy, 40 
Discipline and authority, 252 

Education, 193-4, 221-35, 288-9 
Effort necessary for reward, 334 
Ego, we cannot escape our own, 331 
Egoists, 331-33 

Employers and employees, 127-9, 
148, 183, 248-54, 259, 261, 
265, 302-3 
Equal distribution, 8 

! Equality, insincere claim for, 329 

L-Equity, 329-31 

! Evening classes, 32, 228 

i Excess-profits tax, the, 149-50, 282 

Factory Acts Amendment Bill, 1874, 

debate on, 21-2 
Factory Act Legislation, an essay by 

Miss Victorine Jeans, 22-3 



342 



INDEX 



343 



Ford, Henry, 279-82, 285, 2S8 
Free land for housing, 163-7 

General Works Council., 191 
George, Henry, 9 
Germany, 50—2 
Government — 

control, 41 

types of, 333-34 
Guilds, 268, 273 

Habit as a sleeping partner, 125, 217 
Happiness, John Bright's definition 

of, 296 
Happiness, 352, 333 
Health of munition workers, 25, 208 
Housing, 142-95 
in London, 17 
after the war, 30 
private enterprise checked by the 

war, 143-4 
schemes for remedying the situa- 
tion, 144-8 
land for houses, 155-69, 284 
Human factor in business, the, 66, 88, 
92, H3-i5> 134 

Ideal, highest, 333 

Imitation as a sleeping partner, 126 
Income tax, 248, 299-300 
Individuality, Germans lacking in, 

333 
Industrial Acts, 253 
Industrial administration, 250 
Inertia as a sleeping partner, 126 
' Intelligence of workers, 5, 7 
Inventions, English-speaking races 

lead in, 52 

Labour — 

as a Debenture Holder, 60 

and control, 69-70 

not benefited by philanthropy, 66, 

75 

and eligibility for Boards of Direc- 
tors, 88-9, 106, 122, 288 

relations to Capital, 113-20, 286, 
310 

in the fifteenth century, 268-71 

compared to the organ-blower, 279 

under Socialism, 311-12 

" Labour the source of all wealth " 
fallacy, the, 3i3~ I 5 

and production of wealth, 318-20 
Labour Party, the, 294 



Labour unrest, 6-8, 31, 122, 274 
Large manufacturer, the, 264 
Leisure, 12, 47, 275-6 
Leisured class, the, 8, 18 
Liberty, 296 
Loss-sharing, 93-4, 305 

Machine power versus human energy, 

10-13, 16, 19 
Machinery increases wage-funds, 267 
Management, 66-7, 69, 77, 88, 95, 

102-3, "8, 251, 312 
Manchester Ship Canal, 278 
Masons' marks, 269 
Money-making and Christianity, 

214-15 
Money only relative, 268 
Monotony, 7, 17 

National credit, 297 
Debt, 15, 291 
prosperity, seven pillars of, 291; 

293 
Nationalization, 310- 11, 313 
of industry, 42 

Output in United Kingdom and 

colonies, 48 
Overcrowding, 157-62, 176, 181 

People's Budget, the, 284 
Philanthropy v. Business, 66, 68, 75, 

78, 85, 105, 304 
Physique statistics at Liverpool 

schools, 1 7 1-5 
Piece-work, 85, 103, 309 
Port Sunlight, statistics of births, 
deaths, and marriages at, 176-80 
Port Sunlight paper, the, 85 
Poverty, 9 
Production — 

cost of, 6, 14 

affected by six-hour day, 19-21 

of wealth, 300 
Profit-sharing, 59-122 

not supported by Trade Unions, 61 

does not prevent strikes, 63 

average life five years, 66, 77, 105 

on basis of assured rate of wages, 
78,93 

its definition, 92 

objections to, 305 

versus Socialism, 315-16 
Profits of trade and commerce, 44, 
109, 151, 320 



344 



INDEX 



Progress Club, the, 192 
Progress — 

foundations of, 98 
„ modern lines of, 335-36 
" Protection " for brains, 52 
Public as a business partner, the, 
129-31 

Raw material, 30 

Rents, 162 

Restriction of output, 11, 14, 253, 

255* 257-8, 272 
Rogers, Professor Thorold, 268 
Russia, factory hours in, 21 
Russian collapse, causes of, 334 

" Safety Bulletin boards," 187 
Safety Inspector's Report, 188-90 
Self-criticism, 332 
Self-interest, 90, 273 
Service — - 

advancement only comes by, 330 

outstanding law of life, 330-1 

to others, 330 
Shaftesbury, Lord — 

speaks in Parliament in 1844, 23 

at Manchester in 1866, 24-5 
Short hours and effect on output, 

25-8 
Six-hour day, the — 

not yet applicable to agriculture, 1 9 

full-time machinery not inter- 
rupted, 28, 277 

effect on education, military ser- 
vice, culture, 31-5, 194-5, 288, 
306 

not a loafer's paradise, 153 

and St. Paul, 301 

must be general, 326 
Small manufacturer, the, 264 
Social conditions in Oliver Crom- 
well's time, 292 
Socialism, 310-28 
Standard Oil Company, 261 
State, duties of the, 307-8 
Strikes, 63, 75, 320 

Taxation, proper basis of, 18, 38-9, 
149 



Ten Hours Bill, the, 24, 29 

Trade Unions, 271-3 
distrust of, 14 
mistaken policy of, 46 
under Co-Partnership, 121 
and restriction of output, 258 
versus Combines, 261 
in the fifteenth century, 271 

Trader as business partner, the, 131 

Trust and Distrust of Labour, 4 

Value of the employee, 265-8 

Wages, 47, 74, 78, 98, 100, no, 200, 

287, 319-20 
war-time demand for increase, 15 
after the war, 36 
relation to output, 48, 254-5, 302, 

319 
relation to capital, 65, 267 
under Co-Partnership, 96 
and cost of living, 107, 109-10 
and Savings Banks, 193 
comparison with United States, 

255-6 
in agriculture, 257 
represent profits, 261, 265 
increased by machine inventions, 

267, 275-8, 287 
under the Guilds, 268 
in the seventeenth century, 270 
in America, 295 
logic of the present wage system, 

303 

real and nominal, 320 

factors that govern their rate, 
321-2 
War loan indebtedness, 298-300 
Waste, 28 
Wealth, 8-10 

and taxation, 39 

increases wages, 267 

conscription of, 152, 202-3, 264, 
281-3, 290-1, 296, 298-9,313-15 

inequality of, 295 

production of, 300, 316, 318 

its principal elements, 310 
Welfare work, 183-95 
WorksjCommittees, 1 85-9 1 



Piinlcd in Great Britain by 
UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED, THE GRESHAM PRESS, WOKING AND LONDON 



* 



" 1 


DUE 


, ' ■, ; *« 

DUE DUE 


J 


■■Ml ' 






" 




18* 


- " i 




















i 






















" ! 










— 1 \ 




A 


•—- *'"^>- < 


" . 








1 







JUNl 



| 



40 M. P. L. 670 



1-5-20 



11746-20 



THE PUBLIC LIBRARY 



WASHINGTON. D. C. 



HM 



L575s 



36&QQ8 



All losses or injuries beyond reasonable wear, 
however caused, must be promptly adjusted by the 
person to whom the book is charged. 

Fine for over detention, two cents a day (Sunday 
excluded). 

Books will be issued and received from 9 a. m. 
to 9. p. m. (Sundays, July 4, December 25, excepted). 

KEEP YOUR CARD IN THIS POCKET. 



y,»,E£. RY 0F CONGRESS 



III 

027 331 594 9 



